< June 03	June 05 >

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akua Serwaa Bonsu[edit]

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

BLP of a singer who is described as legendary and has had a long career. However she does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO and the sources I can see either don’t look reliable, or don’t look independent, or don’t look in-depth. Some seem to be recycled PR. Mccapra (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to search on Google but no coverage sadly. Fails GNG and MUSICBIO as Mccapra indicated. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 02:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- TheAafi Are you sure you searched well? Akua Serwaa Bonsu is a well-known Ghanaian musician. This shouldn't be a debate.Mellowdeaous (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mellowdeaous, right now, it's not a debate because there are no arguments for keeping the article. Just saying "he's well-known" is not an argument: you need proof. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Drmies The sources listed prove she is a notable musician. Please go through the sources. All the sources listed - AmeyawDebra.comh, Ghanamusic, Ghsplash.com are all reliable news sites Mellowdeaous (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mellowdeaous, I cleaned up your comments: please indent properly. All that suggests, by the way, that you are not yet a very experienced editor. And the websites you listed, there is no good indication that they are actually reliable independent sources per WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Drmies If Akua Serwaa Bonsu should not be on wikipedia then I guess many of the musicians here do not deserve to be too. Just because an artist does not have many articles about her on the internet does not mean she is not notable. Akua Serwaa is a well known Ghanaian gospel musician and many Ghanaians know her. I listed five reliable sources yet you are saying they are not reliable just because you don't know them. Mellowdeaous (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Mellowdeaous, see WP:TALKREPLY: if you want to play here, you will have to follow the rules. Part of the rules is what constitutes a reliable source. You didn't list five reliable sources--you threw out two URLs and something that appears to be the name of a website. They're in the article? This is on GhanaSlayers.com, an article written by "GhanaSlayers", full of praise and punctuation errors: not a good sign. Now, turning this on me is not going to help you, and comparing to other (even worse?) articles is not going to help your case either. If anyone is going to be notable, it will be because of what reliable sources say, not because some unknown person says "many Ghanaians know her". Drmies (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Drmies I'm sorry if I'm being harsh and rude but I thought the sources listed here prove she is a notable musiciansMellowdeaous (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmm I don't know if you were being harsh and rude, but if someone asks you two or three times to INDENT PROPERLY, and a couple of times removes unnecessary material (like the link to my talk page) from your posts, and you don't do what they have asked you to do politely, what is the word for that? Drmies (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom . No significant disscussion on RS: all the sources are from crappy websites , i see No evidence of Notability ,Samat lib (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject doesn’t meet WP:MUSICBIO. Couldn’t find any reliable sources that pass WP:GNG. —Xclusivzik (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a pattern of non-notable articles being created by this editor Dexxtrall (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage outside of artist's own promotional and routine announcements which fail to establish notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:18, 11 June 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 23:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joselu (footballer, born 1987)[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not "played in ... any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA" or "played ... in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues". No indication that WP:GNG is met. PROD contested in July 2014. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Mattythewhite tried to add a PROD to the article back in 2014, but @In ictu oculi removed the PROD stating that he passed WP:GNG. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any WP:SIGCOV - a WP:BEFORE is tricky because there are other footballers of the same name but there's no sign of anything other than routine transfer announcements; nothing to build a biography from Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:06, 11 June 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 23:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IndicThreads[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB. The article is relies on references from a blog post and a press release. A BEFORE search did not uncover anything better to assert notability/significance. M4DU7 (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable portal. Fails WP:NWEB. Chirota (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail to get reliable sources. Poor to WP:NWEB .1друг (talk) 19:33, 9 June 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 23:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinwe Chibuike[edit]

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

Covert UPE article on a “philanthropist” which lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search predominantly links to self published sources, user generated sources, and pr sponsored posts. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, can't comment on UPE, but if Vanguard and ModernGhana are considered reliable, there are some sigcov viz. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Chirota (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiro725, great question and thanks for asking, the first source is the only reliable source. The second has no byline, indicative of a sponsored post or guest editor, making it an unreliable source. The third and fourth are moderghana.com which is more of a blog than an actual reliable source. Celestina007 (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The awards are utterly trivial, and includign them makes the promotional aspect evident. With respect to the references mentioned, the first contains sentences like "The President and founder, Gloria C. Chibuike is a passionate Philanthropist, who has engaged several charity projects and programs to improve humanity, through consultancy, medical aids, treatment and awareness programs. ", so I do not see how it can be objective coverage or a RS for anything; the second is a celebration of the 3 awards " has been honoured with three distinguished and notable awards for her versatile roles in several sectors in Nigeria and for Nigerians in diaspora. " The 3rd and 4 are essentially advertisements for her work. The newspapers may be reliable in other respects, but not here; there is no source that is wholly reliable in everything, and in particular no newspaper I have seen that does not at least sometimes resort to publishing promotional content. To judge whether something is a RS, you have to actually read it. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, promotional. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, not notable promotional page. Aishaa14 (talk) 19:42, 5 June 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 23:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Nwankwo[edit]

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

media personality and PR agent.

A promotional article on someone in the promotional industry. A number of very minor awards. The references are almost entirely announcements, supplemented by PR cpverage, including 4 items on his wedding. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Yet another a case of a possible undisclosed paid editing where the subject of the article clearly lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. This is the archetypical example of a well crafted ADMASQ. Celestina007 (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I have left a level 2 UPE warning template on the tp of Nnadigoodluck. At this juncture it’s either they aren’t competent enough to hold Autopatrol or this is clearly undisclosed paid editing which this imo this is. I’m contemplating taking this to WP:AN/I for them to be blocked for covert UPE or in the very least, Removing their Autopatrol right as they clearly aren’t competent enough to hold that perm. Celestina007 (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, promotional piece on a promotional promoter. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Aishaa14 (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional data present, doesn't appear notable to me.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 18:26, 7 June 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. The subject fails notability guidelines, no WP:IRS were found. Less Unless (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sakina Lyoka[edit]

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

I'm not sure that she is notable. The first reference is to something called "The Handbook". I seems to be more about contacting her representative than about her. The second reference is about her marriage and looks does not show why she is notable. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is suffering from unsourced info presently, if they are cut down, it will remain may be as a one liner article. Fails sigcov. Chirota (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to locate any decent independent sources about her Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Social media presence doesn't count. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, not enough coverage of RS, Alex-h (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The data mentioned has no reliable sources. Doesn't appear notable to me.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 04:31, 9 June 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. – bradv🍁 14:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bowmansville, Missouri[edit]

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

I attempted to expand this one, and came to a somewhat surprising conclusion: This appears to have been a business venture, not a town.

First, Ramsay refers to this as Mr. Bowman's store. Searching for coverage in old newspapers results brings up a statement that in 1916 they wouldn't put Bowmansville on the map, so Mr. Bowman complained and that it had a store, a blacksmith/wagon shop, and one residence at the time. An advertisement put out later in a local paper by Mr. Bowman indicates that he ran both the store and the blacksmith shop, as well as a mill. I also found a passing mention in a county business report that there was a single merchant at Bowmansville.

Does not appear in 1881 county history. 1918 County history has three mentions of Bowmansville - that Mr. Bowman and his sons conducted the business there, that Bowmansville consisted of Mr. Bowman's store, shop and residence, and a passing mention to Bowmansville being Mr. Bowman's store and shop when discussing the location of a nearby farm. The only person I could find ever referenced to being from Bowmansville is Mr. Bowman.

All indications is that the only thing that was ever at Bowmansville was Mr. Bowman's business enterprises and his house. While Mr. Bowman seems to have tried to pass this place off as a town, it clearly was not. This doesn't pass WP:GEOLAND since it was never populated by anyone other than the Bowmans, and I don't think there's enough coverage here to meet WP:GNG, especially since some of it appears to be affiliated with Mr. Bowman. Hog Farm _Talk 18:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is an historical location and shows up on USGS topographic maps. Don't think Wikipedia is running out of room. Vsmith (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, I guess. USGS topography only shows Bowmanville on select maps starting with Cornelia's in 1955. Google Maps shows Bowmansville is on a side road off Route 13 called S Division, and consists of a preschool, two churches, and less than a dozen houses (no sign of a store, blacksmith, or mill). Clearly, people still live here, but all addresses are for Warrensburg up the road.

However, a Google search found a page about Bowmansville that's rather detailed and has lots of photographic evidence of the place's existence, including a photo dated 1968 (note Bowmansville was first on a map in 1955; Mr. Bowman got his wish after all) and mentions of more residents than just the Bowmans; apparently, the area was settled in the 1880s by a German Baptist congregation, including a deacon named John Bowman. Unfortunately, the page I'm talking about is a blog, meaning we can't use it (though it's apparently connected to the county's historical society).

Bowmansville existed, but it looks like while it got on a map, it was never large enough to be considered a settlement, and I guess most of the original congregation moved out by 1916. It's very interesting, though (yes, I know "it's interesting" isn't a valid reason to keep something); I'd absolutely love to keep this, but there aren't enough sources about it. Maybe some of this information could be moved to Warrensburg, Missouri? Not sure. AdoTang (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The History of Johnson County calls it a "little town." I must admit I also find Hog Farm's finds to be delightful. I love that Mr. Bowman complained to the papers that they wouldn't put Bowmansville on the map, and eventually it made it to USGS maps. But for Mr. Bowman's singular obsession, there wouldn't be a case for this article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 13:52, 12 June 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 St. Louis gun-toting controversy. – bradv🍁 14:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McCloskey[edit]

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

At this point, obvious case of WP:BLP1E to St. Louis gun-toting controversy, and does not meet WP:NPOL. If he wins the Senate election or even gets the Republican nomination then he might be notable enough for an individual entry, but that's WP:CRYSTAL and the page can be created at that time if necessary. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at this point McCloskey is not notable as a political candidate. The coverage of his actions in trying to get intruders off his property does not rise to the level to justify an article. If he wins the election which is nearly 18 months away he will be notable, until then he is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. Louis gun-toting controversy, as was the case until May 19. There's no point deleting this page. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's already notable. Way past one event before this senate run. Now it's a no brainer keep. We could write a 200 reference article on him if anyone cares to. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect announcing a Senate run isn't really an "event" that would qualify you for a page if you weren't otherwise notable. A delete and redirect is proper here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to counter some of the arguments that have been made since I posted, candidates for senate office do not automatically become notable for a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of the articles on the site, and time and time again we've found that people who run for office do not meet that standard. While he was involved in a previous event, a promotional senate campaign doesn't mean he's notable enough for an article - of course, that argument is moot if he wins. SportingFlyer T·C 12:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I would argue there is an enduring coverage about this guy, particularly thanks to his biography prior to announcing his candidacy (the gun controversy and all that). I mean, I had just learnt about the guy from John Oliver, because he was given an entire segment on his show. --212.74.201.233 (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and the community made a conscious decision to redirect this title to the event instead of having a stand-alone page. The campaign isn't in itself notable. SportingFlyer T·C 12:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong though. The community didn't make this decision, some guy did when creating the redirect. And now we are as a community discussing whether this page should exist or not. Moreover, this redirect was created in August, before he started his campaign, when he was only notable for the gun controversy, so your argument is entirely null and void. --212.74.201.233 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, not really. Nobody tried to make the article before it was redirected, and now it's only being created to support a candidacy which is, for now, not notable. Again, our long standing policy is that non-notable people cannot become notable just by filing to run for office. There really hasn't been any argument made to the contrary. SportingFlyer T·C 18:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He was involved in a notable event and is a candidate for major office. He meets the notability guidelines for a page.XavierGreen (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The event already has its own article, and being a candidate for office does not in and of itself meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. Banana Republic (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to St. Louis gun-toting controversy. So far, this is WP:BLP1E and WP:PROMO, Wikipedia is not meant to be a placeholder for aspiring politicians, or advertising for anyone's private business clientele. Note that this article begins by telling us, "Mark McCloskey is an American personal injury lawyer ... ". There is no indication either McCloskey or his wife accomplished anything notable. Pointing a gun at anyone in America is not an anomaly, and certainly not a qualification for WP notability. One of the known motivations for someone to announce their candidacy, is for the name recognition that will increase traffic to their private enterprise. At this point, it serves only as a promotional blurb. Nothing else. — Maile (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Although I prefer deletion, I would also go along with a Redirect. This individual is known for gun headlines, which is not an anomaly in the United States. If he becomes (or is) an official candidate, it only means he paid $200 filing fee, and showed up in person to register. Missouri candidate filing requirements. He's only known for one event. — Maile (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with XavierGreen Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that if he only did some of the things he's known for the article should be removed but but because he did everything he did this article should stay also this discussion is liberals trying to censor him Snowycake (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. Louis gun-toting controversy, per Korny O'Near. Banana Republic (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XavierGreen. He is a candidate for the senate after all 212.74.201.233 (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a candidate for office does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. See WP:NPOL. Banana Republic (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's where we disagree. I think him being notable for both running for office (and apparently being presented as a likely candidate to succeed in the nomination), and the gun controversy in my opinion makes him notable for the standalone article. I've skimmed the rule you linked and I think he fits this rule, in spirit if not in fact. 212.74.201.233 (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Running for the US Senate from Missouri means only that he has to pay a $200 filing fee, and show up in person to register. Missouri candidate filing requirements. — Maile (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By its own terms, WP:BLP1E only applies if the "person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." I truly do not see how that could possibly be true of McCloskey: he spoke at the RNC, appears on television, and is now running for the Senate. As this essay cogently explains, BLP1E is an exception that should be interpreted narrowly, lest it swallow up the rule. Since BLP1E is inapplicable, we're left with the GNG, which McCloskey quite indisputably passes in spades, e.g. 1 2 3 4, all of which are well-regarded national or international outlets. NPOL is also no obstacle, since it explicitly notes that candidates "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." In sum, notwithstanding the political overtones of such an article, I don't find this a difficult case, Like McCloskey or not, a fair interpretation of policy requires me to conclude that he's notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Ok, so I went to 2022 United States Senate election in Missouri and it says that he is a potential candidate, not that he is a candidate. His notability will arrive in 2022, not now. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's right. He has declared his candidacy now, but the race isn't until 2022, when he could feasibly receive the Republican nomination. I believe that's the point you were making, but it's not correct to say he isn't currently a candidate. I agree that being a candidate itself isn't enough to pass NPOL. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to St. Louis gun-toting controversy, Alex-h (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. Louis gun-toting controversy. Candidates are a dime a dozen this early in an election, and the subject is still primarily known for a single event (every reference to him refers to him in context of his infamous gun incident).Citing (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. Louis gun-toting controversy per WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 12:53, 12 June 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. – bradv🍁 15:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Curiel (merchant, born 1687)[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale. A few mentions, some listings, but no significant coverage. Some of the current sourcing does not even mention him. Does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article reads more like a genealogical summary than anything, and does nothing to establish why Curiel is notable.TH1980 (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. First off, this is a historic figure so there is no WP:BLP concern. It's difficult to access the sources in Google Books and for the Caribbean there is no abundance of historical websites as for Europe and Northern America. The amount of name combinations that apply to this community president only makes things more complex. Nevertheless, the following website can give some guidance.[5] When opening the detailed index of Precious Stones it is easy to see that most biographies are 1-2 pages while the true pillars of Judaism in Curacao, among whom Jahacob Hisquia Curiel, typically have 4-6 pages. For Jahacob this is a biography of 5 pages with 4 subchapters. gidonb (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also consider renaming to Jahacob Curiel. gidonb (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. No significant coverage and indeed sounds like a genealogical page. KittenKlub (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gidonb. It's hard to assess sources I can't access, but anyone from the 1600s about whom multiple sources exists is likely to be notable. The fact that he was president of the Jewish community in Curacao seems like evidence of notability. Guettarda (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Gidonb.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gidonb. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aderonke Dairo[edit]

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

Possible covert upe of a non notable politician and “philanthropist” who fails to satisfy and criterion from WP:NPOL and generally lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them so WP:GNG isn’t satisfied also. A before search links me to user generated sources, self published sources and PR sponsored posts. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow! She’s not even running for election for another two years! Does not pass WP:NPOL. Not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for declaring their candidacies in future elections — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But this demonstrates neither that she has preexisting notability for other reasons independently of a pending candidacy, nor that she has a credible claim to her candidacy being more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article did not appeared Remarkable.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:21, 9 June 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. – bradv🍁 15:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josh McKnight[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG Nexus000 (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as his performance and involvement in tournaments and games are discussed in several newspapers. Not a strong keep, however, because I would prefer there to be articles mainly about the man and his life. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage appears to be entirely trivial mentions in race recaps from sailing-specific news publications. JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 3 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) 16:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 15:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 12:59, 12 June 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. – bradv🍁 15:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Diddley (Arvingarna song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG because it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Appearing on the Swedish singles chart is not enough to make it notable. -- Calidum 15:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Calidum 15:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is in fact notable per WP:NMUSIC section Recordings #1, #2 and #7. As a song in Melodifestivalen Swedens highest rated TV show as well. Sources are ok, but improvements can be done. AfD is however not a clean-up service.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:BabbaQ. 162 etc. (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep as stated above by User:BabbaQ and 162 etc.. J 1982 (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this is closed as delete then I'd recommend reversing Talk:Bo Diddley (Bo Diddley song)#Requested move 28 May 2021 since this would be the only notable song. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:NSONG as it charted in Sweden. Additionally, there is likely to be coverage in Swedish language media.4meter4 (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland Virtual Tissue Archive[edit]

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

A scientific organization that does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. Of the four sources included in the article, two are primary sources (both of which are now dead links, leading me to suspect this group no longer exists), and two are not about the organization at all, merely on the concept of tissue banking as a whole. I searched for sources, both under the group's full name and the acronym, and while a few results come up listing them in directories or having been at a conference, I am finding no actual in-depth coverage of the group at all. Looking at the article history, it appears to have been initially created by a WP:SPA that had an obvious connection to the group it was writing about. Rorshacma (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no significant coverage in reliable sources. The best I can find is this, which looks an awful lot like a press release. In any event, the organization falls far short of having multiple NORG-compliant sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:33, 6 June 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) 16:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Male menstruation[edit]

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

Someone prodded it for queried notability, but best discuss it properly here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a lot of hits on Google Scholar including sources addressing male mensuration as an antisemetic conspiracy theory (twice!), its usage as a ritual in certain native cultures, and how it shows up in history and anthropology. Seems to have enough scholarly coverage to pass GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete/Merge to schistosomiasis There's definitely some coverage among academic reliable sources of an antisemitic "male menstruation" myth 1 2 3 4. But, the current topic of the article doesn't really appear to be about that (it contains one sentence, under a section titled "In intersex or trans men", and the page currently reads like a pseudo-disambiguation page. The page contains one source regarding the use of the term "male menstruation" to refer to schistosomiasis, though the content probably would be better included in the disease's article, as the two aren't substantially different topics. The current state of the page is WP:TNT-worthy; there is currently little content dedicated to the focus that appears to have the largest academic use (and no sources are applied in that direction), and even then I'm not sure that "Male Menstruation" would be the proper title (as opposed to "Male Menstruation Myth"). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted, the antisemitic myth angle is well covered in the literature (but not yet anywhere on Wikipedia, as far as I can see). It looks like this article needs a perspective flip: replace the excessive schistosomiasis material with a one-paragraph summary and a ((main)) link to schistosomiasis, then expand the other facet with the existing material. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs to be heavily re-worked, but there is enough coverage of this concept to warrant keeping a standalone article. As noted above, there are plenty of academic sources about the myth of male menstruation in ancient Judaism. I found an additional article about the concept of male menstruation in the work of Sigmund Freud.^[1] I also found an article about "male rituals of pseudo-procreation" among Aboriginal Australians that entail "the men 'menstruating' by making their noses bleed, cutting their arms, subincising their penises, inducing diarrhoea (as a substitute for menstrual blood) or in other ways".^[2] This seems to be a specific case study about the general anthropological concept of male menstruation that is described in two of the sources found by Qwaiiplayer ([6][7]). Although it would be quite difficult to write an encyclopedic article that cohesively ties all of these angles together, that alone is not a reason to delete. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, clearly a scholar g-search yields results, but I think this article is leaning towards Original Research. Since the term "male mensturation" might refer to various things, joining them together in an article would constitude OR. Maybe, we could merge various parts of the article to various other articles and turn this page into a DAP.Cinadon 36 09:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gilman, Sander L. (Winter 1987). "The Struggle of Psychiatry with Psychoanalysis: Who Won?". Critical Inquiry. 13 (2): 302. JSTOR 1343494. The central sign of male periodicity for Fliess (and for Freud) is male menstruation. And its representation, according to Freud in his letter of 20 July 1897 to Fliess, is an 'occasional bloody nasal secretion' (FF, p. 256).
^ Knight, Chris (March 1983). "Levi-Strauss and the Dragon: Mythologiques Reconsidered in the Light of an Australian Aboriginal Myth". Man. 18 (1): 21–50. JSTOR 2801763.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hoax. XOR'easter (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

State Institute of Science and Education[edit]

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

In all probability a hoax. There appear to be no Google results for "State Institute of Science and Education". The author Wissenschaftler-Uni was banned on German Wikipedia indefinitely for creating several hoaxes (see this discussion [in German]). --Icodense (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G3. No evidence to be found that this is a real institution. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article in question has been speedy deleted. This AfD can be closed. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grandiose Digital Media[edit]

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

One of those dreadful articles which have at first glance numerous decent sources, but which turn out to be all paid for or user-generated ones. Nothing about the actual company (like, I don't know, some customers, campaigns, ...), only hollow words.

An example of the typical methods by which these sources are created and these articles produced: the 6th source is an "interview" with CIOLookIndia from January 2021[8] which strangely uses the exact same wording as the first source, an "article" in the Mirror Review from December 2020[9], e.g. the whole "Being in the persuasion business" paragraph, followed by the exact same complete "Consequently, as the clients" paragraph. Fram (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete paid for spam sourced only to blackhat SEO. No coverage to be found. BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly delete. Spoon feeding people advertising. Kadermonkey (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Also, even if the sources were not created by the company, the fact is that these are not reliable sources... you are an international company and you think you are notable? Ok, I want to see an article about your company in some non-indian source that is decently well known. Kadermonkey (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Generic. Entirely generic. scope_creep^Talk 16:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources for a company like this are obviously always going to be in question. Do we have any interest in supporting PR efforts like this? I don't think so. Draft:Grandiose Digital Media may also need deletion alongside.--- Possibly (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PR crap sourced to PR crap. - DoubleCross (‡) 17:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete black hat SEO spam should be removed from the encyclopedia. I was going to tag this g11 but I think it will come out as snow close anyhow. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For example, the source #4 basically autogenerates ranking reports based on CB statistics. It's a simple way to generate leads. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cmt - source 5 is labeled a straight up press release. I'm not sure that the site, "Eastern Herald" is any kind of genuine media too, the fancy Gothic font "masthead" notwithstanding. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article is now at Draft:Grandiose Digital Media...but that said...Nate • (chatter) 03:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is spam garbage and shouldn't have been moved to draftspace...it can't be saved. @Billinghurst:, why was this moved during a deletion discussion that was clearly a snow delete?! Nate • (chatter) 03:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam from a less than run-of-the-mill agency. MarioGom (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Restored to article space and close annulled.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nate • (chatter) 01:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are spam and totally irrelevant. Diamondchandelier (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Relisted ... so a clearer consensus may be reached BWAHAHA good one, glad I stopped by again. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Bri:I had seen it back on the daily log without a notice and didn't know any other way to flag it as a relist so 🤷🏽‍♀️. I'm just glad Fram moved the draft back to article space. Nate • (chatter) 04:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please close Could the result be any clearer?--- Possibly (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don Pedro Falcón Perales[edit]

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

I don't think the available source here passes WP:GNG, the other source is broken but a quick search shows only a passing mention, and I can't find any sources to save this article. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything in my searches better than this magazine page uploaded to Facebook. Even if it did contain some good coverage, there is no clear evidence that he has coverage in multiple sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 9 June 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 Chicken curry. ✗plicit 13:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mango Chicken[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a recipe book TheLongTone (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chicken Curry as mango chicken is just a variant of that dish. I'm not finding enough WP:SIGCOV (besides recipes) to satisfy GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gives enough information about dish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.92.190 (talk) 20:29, June 6, 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to Chicken Curry, as per previous comments. Ravensfire (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chicken curry per above. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chicken Curry, not much info and sources 1друг (talk) 19:35, 9 June 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 Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories. – bradv🍁 15:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert B. Strecker[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. Doesn't meet WP:Academic Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nomination concentrates on WP:ACADEMIC, which probably fails, where the angle is more WP:FRINGE in my opinion. I believe there was already a redlink prior to creation of this article. Existing article sources may not be sufficient to establish notability, as not fully embellished by a somewhat prolific stub bio. creator who goes I'm not really going to do legwork but have done some article boilerplating. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC) I further note nom. is an NPP reviewer (whose work is really essential) and likely raised AfD when operating in that role. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark, Thanks for acknowledging the efforts. Means everything for this otherwise thankless hours of work! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable WP:FRINGE researcher; for such people, we cannot produce a properly neutral article without in-depth mainstream coverage of their work. I don't even think there's currently enough here to support the current name-drop at Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories nor a redirect there. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment I see this quote "One of the most influential conspiracy theorists, judging by the mail his ideas have generated, is Strecker." [10] so he may have been somewhat relevant at the time. But there is not much to go on, I agree. --hroest 21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories, or delete. Redirects are cheap, and the WP:FRINGE stuff seems to have gotten some limited attention for a period of time as a fringe/conspiracy theory; he's covered somewhat prominently in this [11] overview on JSTOR of such theories. I'm not seeing enough GNG coverage for a standalone article; certainly no sign of WP:NPROF. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep or Redirect, he seems to be an important enough figure in the controversy at the time that an article would be merited. Russ has even found a academic treatment of his influence, due to the event happening in pre-internet times there is logically little coverage that is easy to find. --hroest 01:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect. Important figure in a well known controversy in the history of HIV/AIDS research. It's a discredited theory, but it had an important impact on public perception of the disease.4meter4 (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Veldman[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. Fails WP:GNG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not nearly notable at this time. gidonb (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable Kadermonkey (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As author and original poster, I have added various corroborating internal and external links to show that Mr. Veldman is indeed more notable than originally indicated. My bad! I hope that will suffice? Thank you for your consideration! Carelfc (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all that's been done now is a significant WP:REFBOMBing of non-notability lending references. Some of these don't even mention the subject (such as a link to an online Stanford certificate program and the homepage for a provincial government website). Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REFBOMBing was unintentional and has been removed. I guess one only learns by doing and I'm doing my best. Thanks for the criticism; I'm learning.Carelfc (talk) 19:05, 4 June 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. – bradv🍁 15:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Savant Systems[edit]

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

Home automation company does not meet WP:NCORP- coverage consists of generic profile pages and WP:ROUTINE articles about buyouts and acquisitions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article, and I'm not bothered either way, really. And it's true that the sources are routine articles. Overtone11 (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to GE Lighting whose purchase is the focus of most available coverage, but purchase and funding coverage falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. In itself this article fails to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being the parent company its not a good idea to redirect to its subsidary. Apart from its acquiring GE lights, an appointment of CEO, gets a WSJ dedicated article. The business is subject of several major acquisitions/mergers like [12], [13]. Furthermore, the acquisition of GE Electric by Servant was subject of massive coverage, altogether pushing it pass WP:NCORP. Chirota (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as the parent company, and as having independent notability. Notices about acquisitions nad so on don't prove notability as a general course, but if the firms are import enough, they can do so. DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Chiro725 and DGG.4meter4 (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duke & Dexter[edit]

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

This is essentially an advertisment-- a ist of products and endorsements. As expected the references are PR, promotional interviews, and notices. DGG ( talk ) 10:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is blatantly promotional.TH1980 (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ORG, article "references" are advertorial in nature, a gsearch brings up more of the same. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hébert (musician)[edit]

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

Attempted to BLPPROD, but was unaware that authority control makes the article ineligible. Fails notability guidelines, was unable to find any reliable sources to incorporate. Waxworker (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is completely unsourced, and claims nothing about his career that would give him an "inherently" notable pass of WP:NMUSIC in the absence of a GNG-worthy volume of sourcing. And the French article, while slightly (but not significantly) longer, doesn't have any sources in it either, so we can't even pull sources from there and call it a day. Bearcat (talk) 03:07, 5 June 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 Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe#Marvel Encyclopedia (Marvel). (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Encyclopedia[edit]

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

This is a 2006-era disambig for two books (or series of), neither of which has its own article (which I think means this is not a valid disambig anwyay). So if it is not a disambig, could this be an article? Well, right now notability of the disambguated concept is unclear and unlikely (it fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK), and there are no references. Unless someone figures out how to rescue this, the best solution I can see is to redirect this to Official_Handbook_of_the_Marvel_Universe#Marvel_Encyclopedia_(Marvel). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. This supposed disambig page actually does that anyway. LizardJr8 (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and as above. Peneplavím (talk) 17:04, 4 June 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 11:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás Minutella[edit]

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

Argentine footballer who has played on a low level; Segunda Division B, Championnat National 2, and the Andorran first tier. As such fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Geschichte (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable player. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Chirota (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG , WP:NFOOTBALL. Alex-h (talk) 12:23, 8 June 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 Feminnem. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feminem[edit]

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

Two dab page with only one page that makes sense. Would not be opposed to a redirect to Feminnem as ((r from misspelling)). Anarchyte (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested above. I would do it speedily, but the reference to Eminem has been around since 2007 (when it was a redirect). Geschichte (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Feminnem. I agree completely with the nominator. This is a pretty pointless disambig page, and the dimly possible search term can be sent to the girl group if anyone searches for them and commits a typo. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. — Czello 15:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Peneplavím (talk) 17:04, 4 June 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 09:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Kadloor[edit]

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

Article is about a politician who contested in the district council election but lost. The references are mere passing mentions. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Chirota (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, panchyat council is a level of office at which even winning the election still wouldn't guarantee him a Wikipedia article ("inherent" notability for politicians doesn't attach to anything lower than the state legislature), and nothing here suggests that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independently of a failed candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails NPOL and GNG. Ab207 (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG & also fails WP:NPOL. Aishaa14 (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not qualifying WP:NPOL Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Fails WP:NPOL.Poppified ^talk 15:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not follows the norms, irrelevant sources. Cannot find genuine sources.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 16:03, 10 June 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 Dalhousie University#Housing and student facilities. Sandstein 10:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shirreff Hall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shirreff hall

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

An article about a college dormitory. It is not notable and does not meet our WP:NBUILD guideline. Seems to be mostly WP:OR. The previous discussion was arbitrarily closed as Keep. Rusf10 (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not properly sourced for 14 years and no indication of notability. Avilich (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. I don't see any reason why this one needs to be kept. AgentCody 05:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC) strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and this. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a building like any other. No major stories or events linked to this building. And it not have served any historic purpose also. Fishandnotchips (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is weak and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If one wanted to make a keep argument, the sources to use would be:

Waite, Peter B. (1998). The lives of Dalhousie University. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. ISBN 9780773516441. — an academic history of the university, albeit one written by a professor at Dalhousie.
Pasolli, Lisa. "Dalhousie University - Shirreff Hall - A residence for women". Historic Nova Scotia. Retrieved 3 June 2021. — an article from a historical society.

I can't access the book beyond the preview, and even with these sources the case is admittedly marginal, but they give me enough pause to dissuade me from jumping unreservedly on the delete bandwagon. There's also redirection to consider: I can't find any other instance of a Shirreff Hall anywhere in the world, so if this is deemed non-notable, we may want to redirect it to Dalhousie University#Housing and student facilities (a GA) where it is mentioned. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 07:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think its inclusion on the Historic Nova Scotia website and its historical significance as the first hall for women at a major university push it across the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Dalhousie University per AtD. Being first of anything is not an automatic qualification for notability and there is absolutely nothing to indicate the Historic Nova Scotia website meets RS. 8.48.2.14 (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are Sdkb's sources enough for a standalone article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dalhousie University. The sourcing isn't strong enough to justify an article. Whatever the historical significance of the subject might (or might not) be. I'm fine with a redirect though. Especially since it's already mentioned in Dalhousie University. There's zero reason there can't be a bit about it in that article. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a recreation of previously deleted content, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P.K. Firos and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. K. Firos. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PK Firos[edit]

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

Non elected politician who fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If decent sources turn up in Malayalam I’ll reconsider. Mccapra (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Mccapra, fails WP:NPOL. Chirota (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – bradv🍁 15:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Channel 31[edit]

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

Aside from the fact that this apparently includes programming broadcast on Channel 44, not just Channel 31, this seems to fail WP:NOTTVGUIDE. While a list like this would make sense for a cable or network channel that created original programming, this seems to be a listing for community TV stations that recycle other's programming. I'm not familiar with this sort of list, but it seems to me that this will have trouble get past NOTDIRECTORY stuff. Hog Farm _Talk 05:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Programming lists should be limited to original programming and looking at some of the entries, there are a few programmes that are original to the network, so I'm inclined to retain the article just for those entries. Most of it can go though. Also we should not include any sort of future programming per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Ajf773 (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, ~~into Community television in Australia under a new section. But only the original programming should be retained, as suggested by Ajf773. Meticulo (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)~~ I've ~~transferred~~ added the blue-linked, original programs to a new section at Community television in Australia. Meticulo (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete* Regarding broadcasters, WP:DIRECTORY specifically states that articles can include "...historically significant program lists...". I have a feeling that such a historically significant list would be short enough to include on the Channel 31 article. Rogermx (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ajf773. Dr. Universe (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ajf773. Community television creates original content and it is therefore beneficial to keep that information for future Wikipedians. Unoriginal shows and programming should be removed and I would propose renaming the article to List of programs broadcast by Channel 31 (Melbourne) for clarity. Happily888 (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ajf773.4meter4 (talk) 13:12, 12 June 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 Grand River Township, Adair County, Iowa. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nanito, Iowa[edit]

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

Another GNIS entry from the Iowa Geological Survey unrecorded on topos or aerials, the spot being a short ways south into a field on an empty stretch of road. There is documentation of it as a post office, and someone "from" there raised shorthorns, but that's pretty much it. Mangoe (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Nanito Post Office at 41°18′35″N 094°19′46″W / 41.30972°N 94.32944°W / 41.30972; -94.32944 (Nanito Post Office) and http://iagenweb.org/adair/citiestowns/postofficies.htm . Uncle G (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't turn up much, and the non-GNIS source in the article claiming the post office was from 1900-1903 is wrong, as the post office was established in 1898, and closed in 1905 due to the established of Rural Free Delivery. 1918 Iowa State Gazetter just says it was a discontinued post office 8 miles from Greenfield. Found a couple of passing mentions re shorthorns, but besides that all I can find is that Mr. Buck who ran the P.O. died in 1903 and Mrs. Buck took over as postmistress. The Iowa Gazetter fairly well establishes that this was just a P.O., so WP:GEOLAND is not met, and WP:GNG certainly is not. Hog Farm _Talk 03:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grand River Township, Adair County, Iowa. All sources I can find state that this was a post office, and by 1905, it offered limited services. Mention of a post office in Grand River Township is warranted, but a separate article for a post office is not. Unlike Arbor Hill, Iowa, Berea, Iowa, and Fisk, Iowa, no source indicates this was a community, and the 1930 plat map of the county shows nothing there. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect agree with comments above RickH86 (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grand River Township, Adair County, Iowa per above. Peneplavím (talk) 17:04, 4 June 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 Summit Township, Adair County, Iowa. – bradv🍁 15:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linwood, Iowa[edit]

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

Here we reach something of a nadir of sourcing, in that this, like a number of other Iowa GNIS-sourced entries, comes from a 1906 Iowa Geologic Survey map which also appears to be the only source for a number of other places. The topos and all aerials show absolutely nothing at this spot; it's not even a crossroads or the location of a house. There are some hits for a Linwood quarrying operation, but it appears to be elsewhere, as the quarry was on a rail line, and there are no rails near here. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Linwood in Scott County, which is where the quarry was. See also Linwood Post Office at 41°25′20″N 094°37′27″W / 41.42222°N 94.62417°W / 41.42222; -94.62417 (Linwood Post Office) and http://iagenweb.org/adair/citiestowns/postofficies.htm . Uncle G (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Summit Township, Adair County, Iowa, where the Linwood post office was. I can find little sign that there was an actual community here, only a post office, which is worth noting, IMO, in the Summit Township article. Linwood appears on Rand McNally's 1903 map of Iowa, but it didn't even receive a circle indicating the exact location. I can find no other evidence that a community was located here. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unlike the previous two, this one was not even a post office! Dr. Universe (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There definitely was a Linwood Post Office, as it's shown on the map (at the southern limits of the township), but that's it. As far as I've been able to find, no-one considered this a community, not even a "post-hamlet". Firsfron of Ronchester 17:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was going by what was in the Wiki article. The other articles listed a reference to an old post office and this one didn't. Dr. Universe (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1912 Iowa Gazetter has a discontinued post office. Beyond that, I can find through searching that the Linwood P.O. was paid $49.99 in 1899, that the post office was established in 1895, that someone sank a 300 foot mine shaft near Linwood in 1899, and that someone from Linwood was cured of gallstones in 1901. No significant coverage or indication of notability that I could find. Hog Farm _Talk 20:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect agree with comments above RickH86 (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above.4meter4 (talk) 13:14, 12 June 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. This does not appear to be a hoax, but there is agreement that the subject is not notable. A redirect can be created in its place if there is a suitable target. – bradv🍁 15:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Maria Cristina Amelia of Naples and Sicily[edit]

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

Author Kate Heartfield has publicly raised concerns about this article, namely that her research indicates this person never existed. See this social media thread for more, including a detailed examination why this person likely never existed. I also researched this topic and couldn't find any primary sources indicating this person ever existed. Add in that the article was created by a permanently banned Wikipedia editor and there are strong reasons to doubt the truth of what is written here. My opinion is this is a hoax which has existed on Wikipedia for nearly 10 years. SouthernNights (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The second reference points to a Dyson book, which can be found online and does not talk about her. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absent compelling evidence that the subject exists and is notable. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's concern that this is a hoax. There doesn't appear to be anything that shows she existed, an author is publicly doubting its validity, and the article was created by a banned editor. If someone can find sources that prove that she exists and that she's notable, I'd be willing to change my !vote (as long as they aren't circular sources, since this article has existed for almost 10 years and could've affected the real world). Clovermoss (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: she appears in articles for Ferdinand (her father) and her sister and perhaps elsewhere, so if this is deleted all of those articles must be cleaned up. Note that the fact that reference to her in other articles would make this a rather elaborate hoax. Lamona (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a ton of links and references throughout Wikipedia. I'll go in and remove all of them if the article is deleted. And this does indeed indicate the hoax was very elaborate, as you said.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So someone who has very deeply studied the alleged mother's diary finds no sourcing to show this person every existed. This seems to be a very elaborate hoax, and its existence on Wikipedia is disturbing. The fact that the author in question seems to think we should bow down and allow to stand any article on any woman anywhere just because she exists makes me have to wonder what the real goals are here. However this article clearly should not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The same editor who created this page put the information about her on her alleged twin sister's page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to admit I am unconvinced Prince Giuseppe of Naples and Sicily who really did die of smallpox in February 1783 is actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 24.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this does not appear to be a hoax, but it also does not appear to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 12:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per mom and even if existed the subject doesn't appear to pass any criteria for inclusion. The Living love ^talk 12:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a typical Tom article. Even had she been an actual person, I probably would have favoured deletion anyways as it feels like an argument of inherited nobility and the whole article just looks to be about her immediate relations CiphriusKane (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. This is ridiculous. We've deleted an article because of OR by a non-expert published on social media, and that's stupid. Yes, the article was started by a sock, but there are substantial contributions by good faith editors (such as this one) in the history. We need to restart this AfD with a clean discussion.—S Marshall T/C 16:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if the subject existed the point about not passing the GNG stands. The sources cited both in the article and the DRV appear to be passing mentions, including genealogies and the like. Given that the subject died at a very young age at a time when that wasn't uncommon we don't have any good reason to think better sources are out there. It might be worth redirecting to an article on a family member, those often have lists of children. Hut 8.5 18:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reirect eihe t the father Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies or to te twi sisyer[reply]
I note that the genealogical tables cited in the article were published in 1768, but the subject was born in 1779. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Nostradamus published in the 16th century, so it's not impossible this could have been prophesied by then. SportingFlyer T·C 13:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - if this person really is fictional, the creator of the article didn't invent her, as she is listed in Burke's "Royal Families" (vol 1, p 528), published in 1977, and doubtless elsewhere. It would surely make better sense to add her as a footnote to the lists of children in her parents' articles (Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies and Maria Carolina of Austria) with a comment to the effect that her existence has been disputed (although apparently only on Twitter: is that good enough? it wouldn't normally be). Ingratis (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since she would be of equal importance in the articles about her mother and father there is no good redirect target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. The article on the twin sister Maria Cristina of Naples and Sicily is also a possible redirect target. Burke's a few decades ago was a reliable enough source to justify adding Maria Cristina Amelia as a child of both parents, with or without a footnote. Ingratis (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not disputing that she should be added to those pages, just that we shouldn't redirect to them. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understood what you wrote: I'm suggesting that there's a possible redirect to the twin sister instead. (My other comment refers to earlier comments on whether this is a hoax article). Ingratis (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.4meter4 (talk) 12:49, 12 June 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 07:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toyin Onigbanjo[edit]

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

Stub BLP sourced only to promotional pieces lacking independence and just recycling her publicity blurbs. Mccapra (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - BEFORE search only comes up with coverage in unreliable sources and a Vanguard interview. Does not meet the WP:GNG right now. TheSokks_(talk) 08:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The sheer fact that they did this on March 27 in order to circumnavigate an A7 and sneaked it back in two months later doesn’t allow much AGF. In any case they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 11:23, 4 June 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 07:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaosarah Adeyi[edit]

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

BLP of a young political operator who has never been elected to office. The sourcing is mostly interviews and recycled PR. I don’t see anything making a case for notability. Mccapra (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Laudable achievements by the young lady but does not meet WP:NPOL. The coverage basically copy and pasted each other reporting her nomination as a commissioner. This [14] would have made 1E inapplicable but it was not reported by a reliable source. Most likely too soon for this budding politician. TheSokks_(talk) 18:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being an unelected political advisor is not an automatic notability freebie under WP:NPOL, but the sourcing is not solid enough to get her over WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is an office holder and I believe she deserves a Wikipedia page. I can't imagine the page being deleted, does it help to reduce the wide gap we are working at bridging or it is widening it. I would really appreciate if this page still stay. Will ensure to update the article as requested Regards, James Moore200 (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- James Moore200, Not all office holders are presumed notable. We have a guideline at WP:POLITICIAN. Vexations (talk) 10:32, 9 June 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 and cleanup. – bradv🍁 15:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghouls in popular culture[edit]

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

This is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of media appearances of the topic. It does not adhere to the standards of MOS:POPCULT, summary style discussion on the topic's importance in popular culture using examples from reliable sources. I do not think it is possible to improve the topic to the standards of a stand alone article. While Ghoul would have no issue handling the content in the article, I think merging is a poor idea because the current information is mostly unsourced and original research. TTN (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ghoul#Should we just create Ghouls in popular culture? tells us that this was the usual sweeping of unwanted content under the rug. Yet again. (User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing)
The sad thing here in this particular case is that this was not bad content. Tolkien can be sourced to ISBN 9781476614861 page 103 and a bunch more (it being Tolkien). Lovecraft's ghoul on the television (no less!) can be sourced to the "Lovecraft on television" chapter of ISBN 9781476604008. The entry for "ghoul" in ISBN 9781317044260 has Lord Byron, William Beckford's Vathek, Lovecraft, The Ghoul, and more. ISBN 9780195146561, an encyclopaedia of children's literature, gives an indication of having more in its entry for "ghoul". The entry for "ghoul" in ISBN 9781440803895 has Harry Potter, Larry Niven's Ringworld, Lovecraft, two Edgar Allen Poe poems, and others.
Much of this is in the edit history of the original article at Special:Permalink/329641402#Fictional representations. This really shouldn't have been swept under the rug in the first place. It should have been fixed, and ghoul should have discussed the imported idea, as other encyclopaedias in fact do.
Uncle G (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AFD is not cleanup and the issue presented is an editorial one. Note that no argument based on WP:GNG or WP:NLIST was presented as part of the nomination rationale. Not complying with MOS guidelines is not a ground for deletion and in no way are the issues presented insurmountable to justify deletion. Per WP:ATD, if the nominator is concerned about the article's content quality but could not be bothered to research from reliable sources and write content for it, I suggest that the nomination be withdrawn or closed as keep, that the article be tagged for cleanup, and leave it for other editors who may be interested but are unaware that there is a content quality issue. Haleth (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic may be notable, but the current article has next to no rescuable content, and is an unreferenced WP:OR listcruft, so WP:TNT should be invoked. Ping me if someones (Uncle G?) decides to rewrite this, but either way 95%+ of the existing content - if not all of it, honestly - needs to go (fails OR, V, and likely GNG). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:OR easily, TheCartoonEditor | (talk) | (contribs) 04:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. I agree with Haleth's arguments. And there are primary sources mentioned in the text for almost everything, so WP:OR is rather unlikely to apply. And Uncle G has already found secondary sources for it. I have also added a secondary source for the D&D part. So that argument carries little weight. As for the current content having little value, the same applies: The content is not bad, it is only missing (explicit) referencing! And sources have been shown to exist. So the current content can be improved, and therefore WP:TNT by definition does not apply. Then for the topic being indiscriminate: The topic does not strike me as overly broad, and Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content describes how do decide what to include and what not, which is also supported by MOS:POPCULT: Providing secondary (and tertiary) sources. And a WP:BEFORE search provides many secondary sources where this topic appears.

That all said, I am undecided whether the topic is better presented as a separate article or as a section within the Ghoul article. Daranios (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and I just wanted to make explicit: The sources listed by Uncle G clearly show that the topic itself fulfills Wikipedia's notability standards. The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters alone has a five-page-entry dealing directly with the subject. Daranios (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TNT principle. Could be a potential article but nothing in its current form seems salvageable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: But there are important examples of the ghoul in popular culture in the current form. So why should there be nothing salvagable? I have tried to improve the Harry Potter bullet point in this regard (also showing that this was not original research), what do you think? Daranios (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was salvageable before you added that sentence. Still, a single sentence being salvageable does not mean the article should be kept. If the article gets wholesale rewritten demonstrating why each depiction of a ghoul was actually important, I would probably change my !vote. Saying TNT implies that I do think there could be a version of the article worthy of keeping. However, you would also have to prove that the information couldn't just be merged into Ghoul, which it absolutely could at the moment._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: Sure there was something salvagable before I ever touched that section: The sentences that I have kept and sourced, and which where the starting point for me. The same procedure could be applied to any point. (I am not saying that everything should be kept, but that some of it has worth.) It seems you expect a perfect article before you are willing to keep it (or even merge it, given your deletion vote), and I don't think that's how Wikipedia works or should would. Daranios (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline and so is not a valid basis for action. This is a wiki and so our actual policy is WP:IMPERFECT which states clearly that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research pop culture trivia, delete per nom. Waxworker (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Uncle G explains the matter well and so policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G's argument. This article can be cleaned up by providing sources. DestinFox^talk 16:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Destin Fox and Andrew Davidson: Can you elaborate on how Uncle G's argument says the article can be cleaned up and kept? The core problem of this article is that there isn't enough non-trivial coverage of 'Ghouls in popular culture', and this article was created to shove the unwanted content that was originally on the main article elsewhere. Per Uncle G's statement of "It should have been fixed, and ghoul should have discussed the imported idea, as other encyclopaedias in fact do", some of the content of this article could be merged back into ghoul, but only non-trivial entries with proper citations, meaning that 99% of the article would be removed, which isn't enough to justify a content fork. Waxworker (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Waxworker: If I may jump in here: First, I seems to me that Uncle G objects to this "shove the unwanted content", also stating that "in this particular case is that this was not bad content". Then the sources provided by Uncle G show us that there is enough non-trivial coverage of 'Ghouls in popular culture': Encyclopedia of the Zombie: The Walking Dead in Popular Culture and Myth (ISBN 9781440803895) has a two-page entry (+ more elsewhere in the book), The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters (ISBN 9781317044260), as I said, has five pages. There WP:GNG is already fulfilled. Then you say that "99% of the article would be removed". I've improved the Harry Potter entry (and to a degree the D&D entry) using existing material. So there's already more than 1 % to keep. Uncle G specifically mentions three more entries which appear in secondary sources and therefore would likely not be removed (out of, I am counting, 22) - so I think 99% is very much distorted. (And Uncle G mentions already three more appearances in secondary sources appropriate for inclusion.) So I can only agree with DestinFox that the article can be cleaned up by sourcing (and using the found sources to expand the introduction). Daranios (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and of course there's already the introduction based on an academic secondary source, that deals with the origin of and transformation into the depiction of the ghoul in popular culture, another piece that would be kept when improving this into a good article. Daranios (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid this still looks like a candidate for WP:TNT, but at least User:205dvanvoorhees removed a lot of the worst content last year. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: But which of the reasons given in WP:TNT would apply here? Daranios (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daranios, Aside of the lead, which is decent and referenced, everything else seems like SYNTH FANCRUFT. If it helps, I'd be ok with keeping the lead and pruning everything else, continuing what 205dvanvoorhees started. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: What about the example of Harry Potter. The fact that there were sources for the preserved part tells me that that was not synthesis by Wikipedia editors. The fact that there's a tertiary source discussing it (the ideal case according to MOS:POPCULT) tells me that this is a point not solely interesting to fans. Daranios (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daranios, Hmmm. You know, you are right. The HP and DnD parts are decently referenced and can be preserved. I'll adjust my vote accordingly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prune then keep. Daranios convinced me this is salvageable, but let's face it, 99% of the content went already or still needs pruning. Keep the lead, and the reliably referenced paragraphs about Harry Potter and DnD. Everthing else needs to go. So, 1% kept, 99% deleted, this is, hmm, still a form of a keep I guess but... sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: If most of it is pruned, then it does not need to be a spinout article. The info can be added to Ghoul instead as I mentioned above. It is pointless to have a spinout with so little content, so at the very least a redirect would be in order rather than a keep._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Zxcvbnm, That is a valid point too. If it is just those three paragraphs, it could be merged back to Ghoul. No prejudice to this being recreated if more content is written. What do you think, User:Daranios? Any reason this can't be merged back? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: What Zxcvbnm has in mind is a merge and redirect, not redirect only, right? As stated above, I am open to either keep or merge at that point. The best thing to do would of course be check each point and see if there are actually secondary source or not. That's a lot of work however (and AfD is not clean-up). So one way to go about it would be to comment out the things where noone has done the checking yet. But to show that it's not so little, let's have a look at The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Cinematic and Literary Monsters only (which Uncle G has already done in part). There appear from the existing points (aside from Harry Potter): One Thousand and One Nights, Vathek, Edgar Allen Poe, Lovecraft, The Ghoul starring Boris Karloff and The Monster Club (and a number of other examples not yet in the article). So these should be kept also right away, because we already know that there is a tertiary source supporting them. So again, we are very far away from only 1 % of current content being worthwhile. Daranios (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently written an article about the Fallout series' iteration of ghouls, and I note that it is not mentioned at all on the current version of this article. Some of the stuff I've cited which talks about Fallout's use of the ghoul pop culture archetype can form a paragraph. Haleth (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. UncleG said it perfectly.4meter4 (talk) 04:17, 12 June 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. – bradv🍁 15:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dalby, Iowa[edit]

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

Just a post office, all references to it agree; the topos and aerials show nothing at this intersection, though the Old East Paint Creek Lutheran Church is a few hundred yards to the east (and not at the location given in its article). Mangoe (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hancock's Past and present of Allamackee lists this as a post office of Center Township, Allamakee County, Iowa, and apart from also pointing out that the aforementioned church is "near Dalby", says nothing else. The 1880 Lippincott's Gazetteer says "post-hamlet". A few things used the post-office as their postal address. That all that I can find. It's not enough to write an article. Uncle G (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This community was noted in its time, and I've been able to flesh out the article with details from sources. It definitely was more than a post office, at one time. Notability is not temporary. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good rescue. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
dissenting comment I do remember coming across the church (it's still there), but not the school; the problem, however, is that putting these buildings together into a "community" is an act of synthesis. Isolated churches and schools were a normal feature in any rural American area, even in the now-built-up middle Atlantic states. It's been interesting sorting through these Iowa cases, because even now it is easy to distinguish those that were actually laid out as towns from those which had their origins as mere post offices. In the former case, even today, there is as a rule a grid of streets, whereas the latter rarely even show a cluster of buildings at a crossroads. Mangoe (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No synthesis occurs when a source identifies a building being "at Dalby" or "in Dalby", or calls the school the "Dalby School". Whether a community was platted or was created through random aggregation, if there are sources naming these places as communities, then they clearly were communities. There's no problem with merging place-names of localities where no source shows there was a community, and in places where there were multiple hamlets with shared histories, it could be possible to merge multiple settlements together. However, in the specific case of Dalby, we have sources calling it a "hamlet" or listing it alongside other towns (Cram's 1902 Atlas lists Dalby in its index of towns). There's no doubt you identified several locales which truly were only post offices or rail stations, and your work should continue, but Dalby was not actually one of those places. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Firsfron's added references have improved the article enough to pass WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 13:24, 12 June 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 05:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma File Manager[edit]

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

No reliable sources and no claim of notability. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. A WP:BEFORE search shows no coverage in reliable sources at all. Laplorfill (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Laplorfill (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The development of the current application has just begun (less than a week) and of course, it'll take further time for someone to collect more references and to update the contents related to it. Time and patience plays an important role in improving Wikipedia articles, and many Wikipedians among us will accept this. Utkarsh Nayan Gupta (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2021 (IST)
- Hello, article creator. Just saying, but if we need "time and patience" for something to be notable, it's probably not notable, and if it is or will be, well, we don't know that. Check out WP:CRYSTAL: don't just guess and say "hey, maybe this brand new random program on GitHub no one has ever heard of with the poorly-written article is notable enough to stay!" Because it probably isn't. AdoTang (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete GitHub and other repositories are not WP:RS.Ratnahastin ^talk 07:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. The application was released a little over a week ago and I cannot find any coverage of it in reliable sources. It may become notable in the future but right now it is too soon for an article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lord Bolingbroke. Nothing else to say, other than that a rather promotional article being created seconds after a program's release might say something about COI. AdoTang (talk) 19:45, 7 June 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 06:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inyo Broadcast Holdings[edit]

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

Largely a procedural nom. Created by a confirmed sockpuppet in violation of a block, but there are substantial edits from another user (@Fiawsiel73:). Does not appear to be a notable company. News coverage appears to be limited to routine coverage, such as a press release announcing an executive selection, trade mags discussing station purchases with no substantial analysis of the company itself, S&P global with a passing mention of a deal involving this company. In all, I don't think this company is notable (independent of the stations it owns, many of which already have articles). ST47 (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ST47 (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ST47 (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reason the company exists was to sell off the Ion Media stations E. W. Scripps Company couldn't buy because of regulatory caps. At best, maybe a continuation of the Ion Media article or a section in the List of stations owned and operated by Ion Media for the stations it owns, but this is basically a shell company which exists solely to carry Ion and Scripps networks and is purposefully designed to not compete in the television industry. Nate • (chatter) 00:00, 5 June 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 05:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aliakbar Campwala[edit]

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

Director with questionable notability. Article is fairly promotional in nature. Sources do not seem to be WP:RS, and I can't find more in my own search. Mbdfar (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mbdfar (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No lead roles to qualify as WP:NACTOR. No notable works to qualify at WP:CREATIVE. Not enough sources to qualify for WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet NACTOR or NCREATIVE. Sources lacks WP:SIGCOV. Ab207 (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Belushi[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails to meet basic WP:GNG. This is essentially a self-promotional page for an actor who has never had a significant role. The subject also does not meet the criteria for WP:Ent since they have not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances or other productions; have not accumulated a large fan base or “cult” following and; has not made a unique, prolific or innovative contribution to a field of entertainment. Additionally, none of the existing citations here, which include a college newspaper and a press release, meet the criteria for WP: RS. It would appear that the subject is only notable due to their familial relationships. GhostDust (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GhostDust (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A steady working supporting actor and host; not seeing any PROMO tone with this at all. The only mention of his family is appropriately in the early life section, as it should be. Nate • (chatter) 05:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A known actor and host. --Ghaly (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick news archive search using “Rob Belushi” (not Robert) got lots of hits. He’s got non trivial coverage in the Chicago Tribune(see “Humble prince: Rob Belushi aims to transcend family legacy”, Kelley L Carter, Chicago tribune, 2008-06-01), Los Angeles Times, etc. Clearly meets WP:NACTOR as the host of a TV game show, a main cast member on The Joe Schmo Show, and a significant recurring role on How I Met Your Mother alone.4meter4 (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nisha Madhan[edit]

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

Lack of independent content and fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR GermanKity (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that there is a lack of independent content as the majority of the references are sourced from independent and reputable New Zealand newspapers or news websites. Also, given she's starred in Shortland Street, one of New Zealand's most high profile television programmes, as well as the fact she has won awards at one of New Zealands top Theatre Awards ceremonies (both as an actor and director), in my opinion she has met the notability guidelines for an actor. In light of this I am in favour of keeping this article. - Ambrosia10 (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I disagree that there's a lack of independent sources. Several articles listed are from the NZ Herald, which is a leading NZ newspaper and its articles are independent. I also disagree that the subject doesn't meet the notability criteria, as per Ambrosia10's statements above. MurielMary (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've had a look at the news sources. What we've got is an almost complete set of the main New Zealand outlets: The New Zealand Herald (four, but we can discount one as she was the author), Stuff (two), Otago Daily Times, Radio New Zealand and The Spinoff. The only major outfit that is missing is Newshub. One of the NZ Herald articles ("Life after Shanti") deals with her in depth. Most have a photo of her. So without even looking at the awards that she has won, news coverage alone shows that WP:GNG has been achieved. Schwede 66 17:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable and cited to independent sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The additional references and content added since the stub was created yesterday mean that the article clearly meets the requirements for independent sources. The notability of the actor is established through her significant role over three years in the long-running, well-known and popular New Zealand soap opera Shortland Street.Marshelec (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject is notable as an actor with a fanbase and in the creation of new work as a director and creative as indicated in the article. She was identified for an article on the Wikimedia Foundation funded Performing Arts Aotearoa Wikiproject. Pakoire (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject is notable and sources are independent. DrThneed (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, WP:BASIC, and WP:NACTOR; the article has been improved, there is in-depth coverage of her, her career, her fanbase, and biographical information, e.g. New Zealand Herald (2010), and multiple independent and reliable sources reporting on and reviewing other significant roles in multiple notable productions, e.g. Stuff (2012), Stuff (2015), Otago Daily Times (2015); additional support for WP:BASIC notabiity includes coverage of her work on Working On My Night Moves, e.g. Guardian (2019), The Spinoff (2019). Beccaynr (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per [15], [16] & [17] are independent. Sonofstar (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per WP:NACTOR and also have independent sources.Poppified ^talk 16:03, 6 June 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 05:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert H. Sperreng Middle School[edit]

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

References in the list are not reliable and independent of the subject. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV GermanKity (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lindbergh Schools (borderline speedy merge). BD2412 T 06:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the misleading opening line of the article, this is a middle school and not a high school. For the American system we have decided that only true high schools are going to be given any sort of a pass from meeting the full requirements of organizational notability, although I think we have decided we need sourcing even for true high schools a little bit better than showing they exist. The sourcing here would probably not even work to keep it if it were a true high school, and as a middle school is is in no way adequate sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources in the article are trivial, primary "about us" nonsense that doesn't do anything to establish the schools notability. Nothing I could was any better either. Just a few extremely trivial articles about a kid who goes there that won a spelling bee. Also, there's a name drop in a local history book. Which isn't enough on it's own to pass WP:GNG or more importantly anything else. As far as a merge is concerned, I'm against merging badly sourced content because it just degrades the quality of the merge target. So I don't think a good option in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trash sources. Sonofstar (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are unreliable. 🍓⋆JennilyW♡🍧 (talk) 23:27, 7 June 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) 03:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Pierre Comeau[edit]

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

Does not meet the relevant standard, WP:PROF. The citation record does not show an influence on his profession--the higest citations in Google Scholar are 84, 47, 20, 13 . There are no other indications of notability --being a keynote speaker and helping organize a conference are purely routine for any academic . The references are mostly mere listings, or articles in minor trade publications. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete I agree, there is no indication of notability per WP:NPROF yet, may be TOOSOON (thesis 2016). --hroest 21:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His scholarly impact does not yet demonstrate a pass of WP:PROF, and WP:GNG-type notability is also not evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 4 June 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 01:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ishq-e-Laa[edit]

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

Ishq-e-Laa

This is an upcoming unreleased television series, and does not satisfy television notability or general notability. There is already a draft, so that this article cannot be moved into draft space. Naïve Google search shows that this is an upcoming television series; we knew that. The sources are puff pieces announcing the upcoming appearances of the male and female leads.

	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant
1	Somethinghaute.com. Pakistani web site.	Promo about male lead.	Probably not, appears to be from TV network.	No
2	Express Tribune. Pakistani web site.	Promo about male lead.	Probably not, appears to be from TV network.	No
3	Cutacut.com.	Promo about male lead.	No. From TV network.	No
4	DailyPakistan.pk	Promo about female lead.	Probably not, appears to be from TV network.	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no significant coverage. _signed,Iflaq ^(talk) 03:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Can also be speedied, since this was created by a sock. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Ravensfire (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:29, 5 June 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 01:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Anita, Chiapas[edit]

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

Basically some random guy went to this place and claims he saw the image of Christ on a rock. This is sourced to unreliable and WP:PRIMARY sources. One of the sources is a blog, another is a youtube video. Does not meet WP:GNG Rusf10 (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a locally important place of worship. The Tsotsiles who come to worship there are not a culture that writes a lot. I don't have the time to research where newspapers have reported about it in the past. I added the article to improve wikipedia and the links are meant to show that it exists and is considered important by locals (most of whom indigenous with little representation in the media). I suggest leaving the article for others to improve. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjell.kuehne (talk • contribs) 2021-05-28T01:48:48 (UTC)
- So you aren't writing based upon having done research, this subject is not actually documented, and the church has been in the planning stage for 14 years? Uncle G (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any solid info online about this topic. Angryapathy (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparently not covered i nthe Spanish WP, which is usually quite comprehensive for places like this., DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is the topic fails GNG, but passes ANYBIO. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Edington[edit]

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

A BLP of an evidently successful British businessman who has held posts at board level at BAA Airports Limited and Lend Lease Group. He is a former Vice-President and President of the British Property Federation. He has done much work for charity and received the CBE in 2006 for his work for the National Children’s Home. Has authored or co-authored two books.

Unfortunately, there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources with which to write a full biography. The two sources in the article are a few lines in an archived copy of a profile at Bloomberg Businessweek and a line in a list of recipients of New Year honours. My WP:BEFORE, including Google searches and searches of major British media - BBC[18]; The Independent [19][20][21]; The Guardian[22]; The Financial Times[23]; The Times[24], finds only brief mentions. A search of ProQuest brings up more of the same.

The subject does not meet WP:GNG. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability of this BLP is not inherited from National Children’s Home. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable: has a UK Who's Who entry Piecesofuk (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The CBE has always been held to satisfy WP:ANYBIO #1. See here for proof of this consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CBE and criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a CBE is "a well-known and significant award or honor" thus satisfying WP:ANYBIO. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 11 June 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Desperately Seeking Santa[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources, seems to only be listed on databases and on commercial sites for sale, does not meet WP:NF and WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 00:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not really much else I can say. AdoTang (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews at Common Sense Media [[25]] and CineMagazine [[26]] Donaldd23 (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Donald's review links. matt91486 (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two sources are insufficient to show notability for a TV movie, especially when one is more of a parents' guide to content than a real review. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Two sources are all that is needed per WP:NFILM, which doesn't have different rules for TV films. Also, the parent's guide (Common Sense Media) is listed as a Wikipedia Reliable Source, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources and their content is acceptable as a review. Donaldd23 (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Better reviews exist, including this one which I accessed through my university in the Los Angeles Times: MARY McNAMARA (November 26, 2011). TELEVISION REVIEWS; Stories of faith and a mall. p. D19. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help) That took me two minutes to find. It’s an ABC program that aired nationally. There will be other major newspapers with reviews of program from a major network.4meter4 (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update. There is also a review in The New York Times: Shattuck, Kathryn (November 27, 2011). "What's On Sunday". The New York Times. p. MB.11., and the book is mentioned five times in this scholarly book on Christmas films [27]. 4meter4 (talk) 06:04, 11 June 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 Flipside (fanzine). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

X-8 (artist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Old unreferenced BLP tagged in December 2017. No external links to reliable or otherwise useful references are provided. G-searches provided no hits for an artist called "X-8", although this could be a product of the ambiguous pseudonym. The previous AfD voted to keep this article but no references that indicate the subject's notability have since been provided. I welcome any attempts to provide suitable sources. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the subject doesn't pass WP:V of WP:BLP. Unsourced BLP must be treated strictly. _signed,Iflaq ^(talk) 03:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flipside_(fanzine). I did not see anything in a search for X-8, but that may be because search engines tend to interpret that as part of a dimension, as in 10 x 8.--- Possibly (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and unsourced BLP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flipside (fanzine) - the current article mentions an interview with X-8 in the book We Got The Neutron Bomb. This book links X-8 to the name "Sam Diaz", as well as his involvement with Flipside, according to page 84. The "Key personnel" section of the Flipside article also lists X-8 / Diaz as a significant contributor (per the cited El Paisano article), so a redirect seems appropriate at the least. Aranya (talk) 20:44, 10 June 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.