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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator in this edit. Star Mississippi 12:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Erotic Museum[edit]

Hollywood Erotic Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I would like to propose deletion of the Hollywood Erotic Museum. It has no citations, and doesn't have enough material/sources to have an article. It has not been worked on in nearly three years, and other than being a poor quality marketing advert stub to a long gone business it provides little content or context on the museum. It is listed in under Defunct museums on the List of museums in California and that may be all that is needed. Myotus (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Improvements by @Star Mississippi: have helped the article a great deal and it should be able to exist as a Stub. Hopefully others will continue to improve the article. Myotus (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the Observer and LA Times, which I added, probably are enough meet WP:ORG and/or GNG. I wouldn't be against a merge if consensus develops that those two don't meet WP:ORG Star Mississippi 02:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The mention of the item in List of museums in California is simply a link to the article. If the article is gone, that is no good. Perhaps the nominator would prefer a merger? Then a merge proposal would have been better than an AFD. However, the content in the article is more substantial than material for any item at that list article. Better to keep. There is excellent essay wp:ITSAMUSEUM (to which i contributed), too. --Doncram (talk) 16:16, 2 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. somewhat early, per WP:SNOW Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of dictators[edit]

List of dictators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Violation of neutral point of view, will always be utterly arbitrary POV list. Previous community consensus for similar lists has been delete. Goldsztajn (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per G4, see 1st nomination. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don’t believe this list has been discussed as a list anywhere, which would make this some kind of WP:SYNTH. Mccapra (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Seems very arbitrary, not a single citation to be found. Pure WP:OR. — Czello 07:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacking in citations. List has come from the Dictator article which has problems as well, but at least provides a bit of context. --Salix alba (talk): 08:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the article meets the criteria of Speedy deletion. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per G4 Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• If this had meaningful and robust sourcing perhaps this could be considered but at the moment it is entirely unsoruced so should probably be deleted. If some kind of sourcing and inclusion criteria could be agreed upon it could possibly be considered but that's a long way off.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced. The topic itself meets WP:LISTN. It would be best to focus on Dictator#List of people described as dictators from the 19th to the 21st century with sources and consider splitting if that grows enough. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. I know that the previous AfD discussion was back in 2006, but the rationale was sound and still applies, so I don't think that disqualifies it. The list is inherently WP:POV, and that is not a fixable problem. "Dictator" is a value-laden WP:LABEL which is to be used only with WP:INTEXT attribution. This list instead puts it in WP:WikiVoice, which is unacceptable.
  The fact that it is a list also means that we can't circumvent the WP:LABEL problem with WP:INTEXT attribution, because list articles need WP:LISTCRITERIA that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. We can't simply have a list of people who have been described as dictators, as that label is often used loosely and/or hyperbolically to such an extent that it would be necessary to make judgment calls about inclusion based on WP:WEIGHT (we could say that Barack Obama has been described as a dictator with in-text attribution to Paul LePage, but should we?), and then the inclusion criteria aren't unambiguous and objective, now are they?
  It's that problem of balancing objective WP:LISTCRITERIA and WP:NPOV concerns (which require judgment) that makes this untenable as a list article. With prose articles, we have the usual process of assigning WP:Due weight to opposing viewpoints, and excluding that which is undue altogether. We can thus say that mentioning that the subject of the article has been described as a dictator would probably not be WP:DUE in the articles Margaret Thatcher and Abraham Lincoln, but that it probably is WP:DUE in the articles Muammar Gaddafi and Josip Broz Tito (and in the latter cases more context and opposing viewpoints may be added as necessary). In a list like this however, we have to flout either WP:NPOV or WP:LISTCRITERIA (or both), neither of which is acceptable.
  At any rate, there's nothing to merge and no way to salvage this article, so it should be deleted. I would also suggest WP:SALTING it. TompaDompa (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at the current state it is a gross violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt as a list that is never going to have objective inclusion criteria as positioned. The current list is also entirely unsourced to boot. firefly ( t · c ) 10:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: it is impartial right now and any article about dictators will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwmdjeff (talk • contribs) 23:52, 2 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 Carbon neutrality.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Campus carbon neutrality[edit]

Campus carbon neutrality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This page, created in 2009, needs WP:TNT. It's a mixture of promotional junk from various climate organizations touting how much they're doing for the planet and undue promotional junk from individual colleges touting the same. It's unclear why the situation of colleges is so unique as to require separate coverage from Carbon neutrality, which has 22,000 monthly views compared to the 172 at this page. It's also so poorly integrated that it's not even linked from the main carbon neutrality page. Maybe someday we'll have a page on sustainability efforts at colleges and universities, but this is definitely not it. The best path forward right now is to redirect the title to its parent page. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 09:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Carbon neutrality as nom. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 09:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 09:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 09:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• TNT/Delete per nom. Unfortunately another low-quality student essay full of synthesis that doesn't meet the standards of an encyclopedic article. There's a lot of complete irrelevance and promotional specific examples but very little tying these together. It's a plausible topic but with very little of the content here. Reywas92^Talk 17:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Carbon neutrality, as per nom. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Carbon neutrality. Suonii180 (talk) 23:38, 3 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 merge to Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noor Pahlavi[edit]

Noor Pahlavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:notability: among 12 cited references, [1] is the only acceptable one. Others are minor references to the person, or not independent and reliable. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I could not find WP:SIGCOV with a WP:BEFORE. VV 10:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran. Furius (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect into Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran or a related page as WP:Alterative to deletion but the subject herself does not merit a Wikipedia article of her own. I was unable to find reliable secondary sources that help her qualify under WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 19:22, 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.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish military false flag operations[edit]

Turkish military false flag operations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:OR and bad sources Shadow4dark (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shadow4dark (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a few cases of Turkey committing false flag operations and blaming Kurdish rebels. The conflict between the Kurds is still going on till this day with many more cases. Also in 2014 there are leaked tapes of Turkish officials planning or giving the go ahead of a false flag operation for pretext to go to war in Syria. The page still needs improving and updating, if you think the sources are bad, why not improve them. Here's some further additional stories that I was planning to add to this list. Maybe you want to delete those too?

• https://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/turkey/09012016
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku%C5%9Fkonar_massacre
• https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/03/29/turk-m29.html

TataofTata (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did, if you Google Turkish military false flag operations at top link you cant find sources.Shadow4dark (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet I just linked you more? You did, but at the same time did not..

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_pogrom (false flag 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece to stir up the turkish public to attack the Greeks)
• http://www.parikiaki.com/2014/08/retired-general-confesses-to-burning-mosque-to-fire-up-cyprus-public/ (Retired general confessed that he ordered the burning of a mosque as part of psychological warfare operations in 1974.)
• Then there is also the whole Grey Wolves (organization) and Counter-Guerrilla committing terror attacks.

So you found nothing? Maybe looking on the first page of google results leads to nothing, yes. But then what about the content already on Wikipedia, are they bad?TataofTata (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable sourceShadow4dark (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never said that... You're being very vague. Sources are many (3rd paragraph) https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/11/13/dispatches-european-court-presses-turkey-justice TataofTata (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself is very vague. There's not even such a definition as Turkish military false flag operation or false flag operation in cited sources. Wikipedia is not a place to invent new terms. Ahmetlii (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is such a definition of "false flag" (there is even a Wikipedia page of its own), false flag operations and cover-ups, and blaming someone else is not something that is being made up here one bit. The sources all clearly describing the Turkish military committing false flags and cover-ups, either blaming the PKK or others.TataofTata (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TataofTata I am aware false flag article exists, but the thing I was trying to point out was that the word "false flag" hasn't mentioned in any of the sources you have mentioned. And plus, if the definition (in this case, "Turkish military false flag operations") is an interpretation of those sources even though there's not any source that mentions the use of "false flag", that would be original research, which is disallowed in Wikipedia. But if a reliable scholar article that mentions those events are a "false flag operation", then the definition would not be original research as that stated by someone with reliable sources. Ahmetlii (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The actual definition of a false flag as per these dictionaries (that I quickly googled):

• https://www.dictionary.com/browse/false-flag - an attack or other hostile action that obscures the identity of the participants carrying out the action while implicating another group or nation as the perpetrator (often used attributively):
• https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/false-flag - a political or military action that is made to appear to have been carried out by a group that is not actually responsible:

I am sure there are many dictionaries that will say the same thing so I'm not going to keep sourcing.

If you actually look at the false flag article itself, randomly for example look under As pretexts for war, the Russo-Swedish War, it explains the false-flag action and there is no explicit mention of "false flag" in the sources neither.. Having a look at the other content and sources, it's basically all the same. It's the very acts that make it a false flag.

"The term today extends to include countries that organize attacks on themselves and make the attacks appear to be by enemy nations or terrorists, thus giving the nation that was supposedly attacked a pretext for domestic repression and foreign military aggression."page 226.

In this case for example the Kuşkonar massacre the very acts are the definition of a false flag. We have turkey bombing a village, then ruling in a court case that the village was bombed by the PKK. As for a source we have the U.N. (which is reliable) describes an incident in which the Turkish military bombs a village then blames the PKK and the story is obviously in the turkish media spreading the blame on the PKK, by definition it's a false flag operation - committed by turkey / turkish military. The U.N. is purely reporting the incident and that is enough. Each source talks about turkey (turkish) committing an act that is exactly the definition of a false flag (committing an act then blaming another party), I'm amazed you think that this constitutes as original research.. Unbelievable that I am having to explain actual definitions. You also said the article is vague, when the page is pretty much a list of incidents in which turkey commits acts of false flags.. All of these seems like clutching on anything that sticks.TataofTata (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TataofTata I'm not really trying to "nitpicking", but instead I'm giving the reason why the article is considered as "original research" and therefore should not exist in Wikipedia. The claim should be backed by the reliable sources relevant with the article; instead of original synthesis backed by dictionaries which is not relevant with the topic, and also only evaluated by the editors; instead of reliable, verifiable sources. According to Wikipedia, original research means:

The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

Also, could you please quote where "false flag" word appeared without citation that mentioned "false flag" in the articles at Russo-Swedish War? I've searched inside of all of the articles linked on the list and none of them appeared to included the phrase "false flag". Ahmetlii (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's prue Disinformation and misinformation.. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+ A similar debate was happend with the Turkish air force shooting Kurdish civilians. They cited unexploded bombs in the mountains as evidence for this, but when the scene was investigated, it was understood that what was supposed to be a bomb was jet FUEL TANKS... This is what i mean about disinformation and misinformation. I just corrected an edit like this. Fake claim about 42 civilians were killed by State forces during anti-government protests Talking about 6-8 October Kurdish riots for Kobani in Turkey. Civilians who died as a result of the street conflict between YDG-H vs Hudapar (Kurdish islamists) & Gray wolf members on the streets have nothing to do with the state,police or the government. Civilians died as a result of the conflict between 3 groups. in 2014, MHP (Gray wolf) party were in opposition not in goverment either in state so as Hudapar. Here is too the example of the state killing civilians and blaming third parties is given. We have a proverb for this in Turkey; Throw shit, if it doesn't stick, it leaves a mark. IN MY OPINION we should avoid these purely asymmetrical war tactics and propaganda on wikipedia WP:PROPAGANDA Cengizsogutlu (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something unrelated and not mentioned in this article, very biased. I think it's time someone with authority steps in now. Pro-Turkey accounts claiming all sorts of things here. Here's another source. I have spent more time here than on the actual article. I think this kind of abuse should not be allowed.TataofTata (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Perfectly fits into our definition of original research. TataofTata, you are saying that you are being "abused by pro-Turkey accounts" and calling other people who have voiced their opinion based on policies "biased", yet in the article you call the Istanbul pogrom "Constantinople riot". This event took place in 1955, decades after the Constantinople name was dropped and is therefore an WP:NPOV violation, and is also a MOS:EGG. I think this also shows a bit of where you stand towards Turkey. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 13:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, if you want to argue that Cengizsogutlu's "voiced opinion" is unbiased and his vote is based on "policies" feel free, but that is what I believe is biased and abusing the voting as he mentioned something completely unrelated to this article arguing for its deletion, so you literally made up that quote and putting words into my mouth.

I should have been more clear. All I see is turkish accounts essentially ganging up trying to get this deleted as I simply said, "claiming all sorts of things", which we can see happening, even yourself and GGT user below, every policy "violation" hoping that will stick. If you felt that "Constantinople riot" is inaccurate or not neutral, you were more than welcome to contribute and correct, only if I reverted your change would it be fair to accuse me of a violation if I did violate it. Ignoring your accusation about where I stand with Turkey, while doing research on that section I recall it being called as that in some of the sources and link to the Wikipedia article itself was added later. So clearly we can see they were still using Constantinople in the 1900's... Also this. The city was renamed after the Ottomans conquered it, it wasn't simply dropped. When the allies took it over they were calling it Constantinople so you're making it out to be some kind of rare occurrence that I just reinvented.

I'll address the elephant in the room, you guys obviously don't like what you see and want to remove it. Literally arguing the meanings and definition of "false-flag", while also clearly we can see this discussion has more edits and word count than the article itself. I found this Wikipedia article trying to research more on turkey's false flags and after finding more content I thought I would share and now I see trying to remove the content is obviously your goalsTataofTata (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Blatant violation of WP:OR and fits in with the user's disruptive pattern of synthesising content to push their pro-PKK POV on other articles. There are simply no sources that treat these as instances of a single, unified phenomenon, so the whole scope of the article is original research, and these are not even undisputed instances of false flag operations. --GGT (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing people of being pro-PKK, sounds like something done in Turkey for when people speak the truth. I don't know where you thought this was a "single, unified phenomenon" argument.. You mention the Pınarcık massacre page, but you reverted my edits which was to try and make the page more neutral, you reverted to the edits of someone who was banned and clearly manipulated the page with a very pro-turkish narrative. In 2016 you manipulated the page to burry a confession by a ex-special forces officer who states the perpetrators were turkish JİTEM (a clandestine wing with the turkish military committing illegal activities) You have a history of edit warring, disruptive editing and maybe more. I think this needs to stop Wikipedia is not to push Turkey's nationalistic views.TataofTata (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note from the page's creator. Thanks everybody for the input. About the request for deletion based on WP:OR I have to argue that it doesn't apply due to the very gravity of the context. As some of you already argued, the examples named in the article are a summary of military acts that were blamed for years on insurgents and were disclosed later as something which is called by definition "False Flag". WP:OR states that the published material is taken for own interpretation ("that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources"). The sources are by nature revolving around the horrible events that occurred, and not "generalizing" the deaths of individuals as "one of many other attacks". Death is seen by every family and their lawyers as a tragedy in itself. But what we have here in this article is a listing of what is explaining most correctly a "False Flag operation". We do not invent or coin anything. We need to classify or summarize. It's just that the sheer number of such cases goes into the hundreds, if not thousands, and are covered by international courts and human rights organization. I haven't had the possibility to work on the page properly yet, but will now through your kind critics on the lacking of the article. I was searching just now for over an hour a certain lawyer's office documents of hundreds of pages that I had saved. I will find it share here as an insight for the Turkish users to understand the gravity of the issue. About the claim that the page is Orphaned WP:OR and should therefore be deleted, I join here the comment of TataofTata that any shortage in the page should be corrected and improved, rather than asking the scrapping of a whole concept. The allegedly poor links do work as I see and are all part of investigative journalism. They count very well as valid for Wikipedia articles. The definition of orphaned says that "an article has no links from other pages in the main article namespace". This can be changed easily by a single addition. I haven't done that yet because I expected some others to enhance the page with their research file, but they couldn't due to some personal situations (studies etc). I will be working now once a week to add data to the page and will thereafter add links in a proper context to the page that I created. Thank you for marking it therefore. Shadow4dark Ahmetlii But I ask to retract the deletion request herewith.

And about the addition of Constantinople and older ones, they can be improved and need to be taken as different cases. They do not influence the validity of the page itself. But I myself argue that it doesn't fit into the frame of the page because the introduction specifically talks about the relation between the Kurdish insurgents of the Worker's Party. Older events that describe a military of different kind and era belong to another page. The Turkish military has undergone some phases but cannot be prosecuted anymore for the older events. Listing all events would have therefore no practical meaning. If there are multiple cases before 1978 that had an impact of how Turkey evolved as a state, then you would be able to open a new page named something like "Military Coups (Turkey)" or so, describing the coups and crimes that happened and therefore "changed the course of events". The goal of the page "Turkish military false flag operations" has another purpose and frame. After the last of 1980 there had been countless of individual murders, done by state-affiliated actors or soldiers but blamed on any leftist organizations back then. With the beginning of the armed conflict in 1984 the military of Turkey used disproportionate force in the Kurdish regions to crush the uprising and assimilate all Kurdish elements for the sake of a "single entity". There are countless cases that can still be prosecuted and benefit a course of peace in our era. So by listing the cases after 1980 (military coup) one offers a collected information page of military actions (done by the same era defense council) that were PROVEN by court and investigation to have been blamed falsely on insurgents, further escalating the relation between communities. So I want to ask you please to retract any of your additions of events before 1978 (founding of the Kurdistan Worker's Party as a student's organization). Further examples will be added henceforth.

In regard to the claim of WP:SYNTH by GGT I have to add that the definition refers to a context being manipulated from A+B to C, but doesn't refer to the numerical listing of events in the same frame. As I said, I want that the events before 1980/1978 are deleted so that there is no disruption in context and any influence on how the military should be perceived. The goal is not to say "the Turkish military has done false flag operations since 1930" or so, but to list the very military operations of the 1980 coup and post-coup era that exacerbated the human rights situation in the country. The claim of WP:NPOV, meaning "neutral point of view" falls into the same frame and is not the case here. The article "Turkish military false flag attacks" is a listing page for multiple events of this era which are variously reported by that frame. Multiple researches go also about para-military groups formerly controlled by the army. This page will be a list for these occurences. WP:PROPAGANDA and WP:misinformation are therefore as well invalid claims. RedurMaye (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Can you guys, like, actually work on this instead of, excuse my language, bitching and whining about how everyone that isn't you is biased and is pro-Turkey or anti-Turkey or whatever? Processes such as AfD don't get done when you have people either posting unformatted paragraphs about how Turkey (and thus every editor that is against them) is evil or rushing to delete the page because they don't like how mean this is to Meleagris. And if this article's staying, it needs some work, because I'm seeing grammatical errors five seconds into a quick skim and, judging by the amount of heat this topic alone has brought, I don't feel keen on editing it myself. AdoTang (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Solely based on original research, with human rights organizations being the sole source in most of it. I understand why the creator wants to draw attention to these and the "very gravity of the context", but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it only exists to repeat what established experts are saying. For this list of "operations" to even be considered as an article, the references need to be from independent experts who specifically label each one as a "false flag operation". Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW. The consensus for deletion is overwhelming, and there is no need to drag this debate on any longer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of bestiality by country or territory[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Legality of bestiality by country or territory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Another problematic article on zoophilia/animal rape. At a glance this appears to be well cited and researched, but a deeper look reveals serious issues. The main concern here is that an awful lot of this article is actually original research, in that its author's seem to have looked into the laws themselves and arrived at their own conclusions on the legality of raping animals in each jurisdiction, instead of relying on third-party reliable sources that have written about those laws and what they mean. This has resulted in a situation where the article is probably accurate about where animal rape is explicitly against the law, but every entry marked as "legal" or "unknown" is due to a lack of reliably sourced information found during the course of the original research, as opposed to a reflection of the actual situation in these jurisdictions. In some cases the repeal of sodomy laws has the unintended side effect of technically removing explicit laws on raping animals, but this cannot reasonably be taken as an explicit endorsement of the legality of animal raping.

In short, I don't think it is consistent with Wikipedia's goals and standards to have a half-baked road map of the world to help people figure out where it is possibly legal to rape animals. Conversely, suggesting that it is legal in certain jurisdictions could lead to actual harm for people who are actually interested in raping animals and think they should legally be allowed to do so, and so might go, for example, to West Virginia so they can have horse sex, only to find that it is not in fact perfectly legal to do so there, which could have very serious negative consequences for them. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Beeblebrox. The sourcing of this article is utterly abysmal. For example, it uses, as the only source for bestiality supposedly being legal in four African countries (Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Madagascar, Mozambique), an article on "Animal welfare in OIE member countries & territories in the SADC region" [2] in which neither the word 'Bestiality' nor 'zoophilia' can be found at all. An article which appears not to even discuss the subject. Instead, whoever cited this source seems to think that because said countries do not (or did not, according to the cited source) have specific animal welfare legislation, bestiality must be legal. This dubious bit of WP:OR clearly doesn't stand a moments thought, given the history of laws against such sexual acts in many cultures, which have frequently been motivated by concerns over human morality, and on outlawing 'unnatural' sexuality (as defined by the relevant cultural norms) rather than over any concern for the animal concerned. Absence of specific animal welfare legislation simply cannot be taken to be evidence for the legality of anything. To assert otherwise is just plain idiotic.

This is only one example. From a brief further inspection, I can't see citations for any of the few countries the article claims that bestiality is legal which stand much scrutiny as valid sources for such an unequivocal assertion. And most of the sources cited thus are simply crap, unworthy of serious discussion. So I won't bother, unless someone actually wants to try to argue otherwise. The idea that something as complex as worldwide legislation regarding such a topic can meaningfully be reduced to a tick or cross in a table is simply untenable, and such content has no place in anything purporting to be a serious encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom and Andy, plus the following:

• According to XTools [3] this article was primarily authored by AHC300 (talk · contribs), a sockpuppet of Latitude0116 (talk · contribs), who is a pro-zoophilia user: see the SPI.
• Another important contributor, Gygas318 (talk · contribs) has added 14k of content to this article but has only 4 contributions to the project. ACH300 and Gygas318 account for 40% of the current article's authorship.
• A longstanding controversy about the situation in Germany has been involving KuchenHunde (talk · contribs) [4][5], who has made no contribution outside of this topic area and has admitted to being a zoophile living in Germany [6].

All of this gives credence to the idea that this a sexual tourism guidebook. JBchrch talk 23:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I had not realized that the entire section US states was done in a single edit by someone who apparently already had the "research" in their pocket by their fourth edit ever to this project. No  Redflags there.... Beeblebrox (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per 'brox, AtG & JBchrch. Significant OR concerns, as explained by AtG, which are not reasonably resolvable through normal editing - an article of this type will always be prone to OR. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research on the most dubious of subjects. →StaniStani 02:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the multiple thorough comments given above. An irredeemable and unencyclopedic article. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TNT: OR wrecking ball, fails LISTN. per sanity. ——Serial 12:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Having tried to find in depth sources for just one country lead me to the conclusion that there really aren't enough resources out there to confidently create and source an article such as this one. P.s. Even if this is not a main article some attempts at maintain a NPOV should be made. Opinionated wording such as "raping animals" are unnecessary and confusing as the subject of the article in question is "bestiality", a term which has been well defined in the main Zoophilia article! KuchenHunde (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pedophiles who rape girls would rather it was referred to as "having sex with underage women" but I won't play along with that bullshit either. If one party in a sex act cannot legally consent, it's rape. That's only confusing to people who think it is ok to rape animals. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In your example the established terminology would probably be child sexual abuse just as the established terminology here is bestiality
• I would like you to think about what you just said: "If one party in a sex act cannot legally consent"

I'll assume that this sentence is in reference to bestiality and not child sexual abuse so that would mean you are viewing non human animals as a "party in a sex act" implying personhood but in the very same sentence you go on contradict yourselfe!

Legal consent requires legal personhood! Since non human animals are, sadly, treated as legal objects in most of the world legal consent is neither possible nor necessary to do anything with them. Basically you're arguing that "non human animals are people and because they aren't people..."

Srly: Touching someone without their consent is assault, animals can't legally consent -> touching animals is assault!

Restraining someone without theri consent is false imprisonment...

Don't even get me started on muder.

That's not only a piss poor argument but, unless we're talking about e.g. Tom Regan disagreeing with Peter Singer it also has no place on Wikipedia as, again, the established term for this article is "Bestiality" and using other terms is just unnecessarily confusing. If you can't keep your personal prejudice in check and use the established terminology to write just five sentences then I question your abillity to write and maintain NPOV Wikipedia articles. KuchenHunde (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KuchenHunde you can wikilawyer all you like, but this is just trolling. ——Serial 13:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Wikilawyering, trolling, nor arguing about the appropriate terminology for the behaviour which this article relates to are particularly relevant to this discussion. If the article instead concerned a 'List of countries in which Marmite can be purchased', the relevant arguments for deletion would likely be much the same. It is poorly sourced, contains a great deal of 'original research' (though 'partisan guesswork' would probably be a more accurate description), and is apparently based on the dubious premise that a complex issue can usefully be reduced to ticks and crosses in tables. I suggest that people who want to argue about the morality, legality and appropriate terminology for inter-species sexual acts find somewhere other than Wikipedia to do so, before they are obliged to, per WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the terminology used is really not what we are here to debate and I probably should've just said that. I freely I admit I have an extreme dislike of people who abuse animals,be it for sex or any other reason, but the problem here is not the subject matter itself, it's the blatant original research. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Same issue as what is happening at this TfD for a template on the same topic. Nothing but OR. The nontrivial details about Germany should be merged to the main Zoophilia article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Beeblebrox and others. There's no need to debate on whether it is 'dubious' or bad faith (to be fair moral arguments seem to hurt the delete cause more than it helps), it's just pure, plain WP:OR and it's not in a good enough state to be salvaged. Uness232 (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hilarious this guy's trying to censor this page about zoophilia laws around the globe but not the CP legality around the globe page.

Honestly this is a good page, informative and should stay up. It's not promoting or shaming the subject it's mearly stating laws around the planet that people need to be aware of.

It's unbiased unlike the person trying to censor this page below me. Yes people could use to to go to these countries but they could also use it to raise awareness about these countries to change the laws.

Yet again I see this page as unbiased and mearly stating laws around the globe similar to your one on CP or your legality of marijuana or any other subject. Because Wikipedia is meant to be unbiased, uncensored information about laws, countries and much more. Don't take this down because of mere moral panic. Information should be uncensored, unbiased and free. If you take this down then you have to take down the CP one, any laws on drugs around the globe, laws on LGBT rights and any other " controversial " topics because of " feelings ".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_child_pornography#Status_by_country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.143.175.110 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Note, the above comment was erroneously posted at the top of the page, I have moved it here, and added a signature. The reference to the post 'below' presumably applies to the deletion nomination proposal by Beeblebrox above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Please read the Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process. And then read the posts above explaining in detail why people are supporting deletion. This has little to do with 'censorship', but instead concerns an article which is thoroughly misleading. The 'information' it carries on the supposed legality of bestiality in a few countries is unsupported by properly-sourced citations, and is instead based on what amounts to guesswork. It is about as 'informative' as a flat-Earther's atlas, and lacks even the entertainment value that such an atlas might provide. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nomination; Wikipedia is not a host for original research papers.TH1980 (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In principle I'm ok with an article existing at Legality of bestiality by country or territory, but the problems with this article are too deep to fix. WP:TNT applies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't conceive of any way a table-based article of this format could possibly do justice to a complex subject like worldwide legislation on bestiality. It can't usefully be reduced to tickboxes, and attempting to do so would over-simplify it, even if legitimate sources could be found. If properly-sourced and appropriate content on the subject can be created, it should be be properly explained, textually, in the Zoophilia article where the broader context can be explained. Regardless of the subject matter, 'lists' which apply a false reductionism to complex issues don't belong in any encyclopaedia purporting to be a purveyor of 'knowledge'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What might work is a list of countries with laws explicitly covering bestiality and then putting the law(s) and an appropriate translation there...KuchenHunde (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Having Wikipedians decide which laws are 'explicitly covering bestiality', and then deciding on how they are to be translated will create another opening for WP:OR and partisan spin. And there is never any realistic hope of such a list up to date. Such a list would be unencyclopaedic, inevitably incomplete, and giving an entirely false impression of definitiveness. Exactly the problems this article already has. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would violate rules #2-5 of WP:PRIMARY. JBchrch talk 19:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom. Peter Damian (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt and kudos to Beeblebrox for digging into the references and the way they are being used. WP:NOTADVOCACY applies as well. MarnetteD|Talk 23:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looking at the references there now I'm satisfied by the nom's argument that the article as exists is basically OR, and if the topic needs a deep delve into the laws themselves to outline then it's unlikely to be notable by Wikipedia's standards. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 23:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per nominator, appears to have consisted largely of original research since 2006. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep delete. It's an odd topic, and there's certainly plenty of WP:OR issues, but it appears to have coverage in multiple reliable sources and thus passes WP:GNG. These sources include a 2016 paper published in The Journal of Sex Research, a 2014 paper in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, and a 2005 paper from Purdue University. I'm also finding law review articles (such as this one) that cover the topic from a U.S.-centric perspective. It's unclear to me if this would be better in a list format or if this information would be better incorporated into an existing article or if this article is WP:TNT-worthy, which is why my !vote for keep is a weak one, (update: I think it's probably WP:TNT-worthy) though I believe that the legality of bestiality passes the bar in significant coverage when we consider academic sources. If we do keep it, the article needs significant revision to be in line with WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:NOR. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The general topic (or rather two related topics - zoophilia and bestiality) is certainly notable. And there are quite sufficient sources to write an article on it. And, where appropriate sources are available, discussion of relevant legislation in specific countries is certainly both feasible and desirable. What is not however appropriate is any sort of article based around the premise that this one is founded on - that it is possible for Wikipedia to compile tables regarding such legislation worldwide, stating whether bestiality is 'legal' or 'illegal' in specific places. Ay such list-based article can only be incomplete, reductionist and consequently misleading, and open to the sort of partisan spin that we currently see. There is nothing of any consequence to 'keep' here, and the existing zoophilia article already discusses such legislation. What needs to be done is to clean up the poor sourcing and spin there, and expand the section on legislation accordingly, based around what we can safely state from the sources we have, rather than on guesswork regarding contexts where we clearly don't have adequate sourcing. As to whether a non-table-based article specifically discussing worldwide legislation regarding bestiality is desirable, I'd have to suggest that since the question of legality has been so central to the broader discussion of the topic, it probably isn't, and that as it stands, there isn't enough source material nor content in the existing zoophilia article to justify it anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense; I'm moving from weak keep to weak delete. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete following the good work by the OP and the constructive reasons above. "This is a good page you're censoring" is not a valid reason to keep. This content appears to have been thrown together by sockpuppets and restricted editors, itself an issue. doktorb _words^deeds 09:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as synthesis, and synthesis based on very shaky sources in many cases. firefly ( t · c ) 10:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Beeblebrox. WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTTRAVEL, etc. Notfrompedro (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete basically original research based on a bucket list of countries' laws and novel interpretations of court cases. Minimal to no reliable secondary sources. At minimum TNT applies. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I guess this is some sort of artifact of a page move, Legality of bestiality by country or territory (version 2) should also be deleted when this is. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 1 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 Kennedy Town#Streets. Thanks everyone for your further feedback. Missvain (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pokfield Road[edit]

Pokfield Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of why this is notable, part of a series of non-notable Hong Kong roads. The applicable guideline is WP:GEOROAD, which has not been met. Rusf10 (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Kennedy Town#Streets (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the street is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. It is useful to preserve the history under the redirect to allow for editors to undo the redirect if significant coverage in reliable sources is found. It is also useful to preserve the history to allow for a merge of the content.

  Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, but from Pokfield Road Bus Terminus - It would appear that between the road, its innovative name origin (for its age), and the prominent bus terminus have enough secondary source coverage when taken as a unit. Deryck C. 18:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Kennedy Town#Streets per Cunard. I am not sure Pokfield Road Bus Terminus itself meets WP:GNG, as I was only able to find passing mentions of the terminal in both Chinese and English language sources. The Chinese version of the article on the terminus was little more than a bus route directory, and although a fan-written bus encyclopedia provided interesting information on the history of the terminus, most of the information was not properly cited and therefore lacks reliability for inclusion. The same applies to Pokfield Road - I was unable to find reliable sources with substantial coverage on the subject. A redirect is best served here per WP:ATD-R. --Dps04 (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kennedy Town#Streets. I couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 23:41, 3 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Egan, Iowa[edit]

Egan, Iowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another rural post office, located at what has been an empty intersection for close to a century if the aerial dates are to be believed. Only other hits are for names. Mangoe (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. Searches will give you nothing no matter what you do. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GEOLAND as the only feature of the location was a post office that lasted for 3 years, which neither consitutes a legally recongized community nor a populated unrecognized community. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree this was likely just a P.O. This from 1918 just calls it a discontinued post office, the Hancock source in the article is only a passing mention that there was a short-lived post office here, newspapers.com in Allamakee County brings up only last names and a place in South Dakota, and searching elsewhere brings up names and passing mentions in lists of post offices. This doesn't seem to have been more than a P.O. and is not notable. Hog Farm _Talk 22:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I see that Hog Farm has already checked Polk's Gazeteer. For completeness: That's volume 1 of Hancock, and my research independently turned up James Egan (the postmaster) on page 423 of volume 2, which tells us that this was a family farm in Linton Township, Allamakee County, Iowa, which is the actual enclosing place here (per the very source cited in this article, indeed, which is about Linton Township). Uncle G (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Linton Township, Allamakee County, Iowa and mention the short-lived PO there. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree with statements above RickH86 (talk) 11:40, 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. Going to assume there are non-English language sources per User:Rugbyfan22. Missvain (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 SAARC Quadrangular[edit]

1994–95 SAARC Quadrangular (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable event, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Not 100% certain on the policy for tours, but it was a tour of LA matches featuring international sides, there seems to be some coverage of the tournament online, and there will likely be more offline or in Bangladeshi sources. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I just wanted to let you know about WP:NEVENT guideline which says sources should be in-depth, diverse, and has received coverage for a duration. Thanks. Störm (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Rugbyfan22. Otinflewer (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per Rugbyfan22. StickyWicket (talk) 11:15, 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. Going to assume there are non-English language sources per User:Rugbyfan22. Missvain (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1992–93 SAARC Quadrangular[edit]

1992–93 SAARC Quadrangular (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable event, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Not 100% certain on the policy for tours, but this was a LA tour featuring international sides. There is coverage of the tournament in an internet search, and I imagine there'd likely be more offline and in Bangladeshi sources. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I just wanted to let you know about WP:NEVENT guideline which says sources should be in-depth, diverse, and has received coverage for a duration. Thanks. Störm (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Rugbyfan22. Otinflewer (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Rugbyfan22. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 10:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Rugbyfan22. StickyWicket (talk) 11:16, 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 00:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FIS Alpine World Ski Championships 2027[edit]

FIS Alpine World Ski Championships 2027 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A future event that hasn't even had the venue decided yet. This is not even the next World Championship, there will be the 2023 and 2025 championships before this one. A case of WP:TOOSOON. John B123 (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an event that will take place. In contrast, WP:TOOSOON refers to uncertain events.--Keimzelle (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clearly a case of [[WP:TOOSOON - Not sure where above editor gets the idea that this only applies to uncertain events. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No indepth sources available. A case of TOOSOON. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:56, 1 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eldergrove, Iowa[edit]

Eldergrove, Iowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It was and is a farm, once housing a post office. A farm where they once raised shorthorns. That's all I get, and that's what the maps and aerials show. Mangoe (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Polk's 1918 Iowa State Gazetteer lists this as "a discontinued postoffice on Taylor Township". Hancock's 1913 Past and present of Allamakee county, Iowa lists several post offices of Taylor Township, but not this one. The 1929 Annals of Iowa gives this an entry in a list on page 438 as "In section 8, Taylor Township. Post office, 1897–03.". That's the total extent of the available documentation on this, and post offices in Taylor Township, Allamakee County, Iowa really should be part of the history in that article. The Annals of Iowa isn't even breaking it down that far. Its list is under the heading of Allamakee County, Iowa. Uncle G (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no indication that this was an actual populated community. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Topographic maps (specifically those for Iowa; nearby Wisconsin maps show nothing) show it's been around since 1903; maps since 1983 specify it to a dead-end driveway. Google Maps shows it's on the corner of said driveway (featuring what look like two farms and that's it) and Gronna Drive. Google Maps also doesn't mark Eldergrove as extant unless you specifically set it as a destination, and instead marks all nearby addresses as either Allamakee County or nearby Harper's Ferry. Though there are maybe four other farms in the area, there's nothing to show that Eldergrove is any sort of community. AdoTang (talk) 17:27, 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 01:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MPPF (disambiguation)[edit]

MPPF (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unnecessary two-item dab with only one matching article, the chemical compound MPPF. A hatnote there for the space facility is sufficient. MB 16:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Pointless and unnecessary. PamD 21:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A disambiguation page is not required (WP:2DABS). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Guillandeaux[edit]

Ruben Guillandeaux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable basketball player, fails WP:NBASKET, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:12, 1 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 Ludlow Township, Allamakee County, Iowa.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ludlow, Iowa[edit]

Ludlow, Iowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Yet another Iowa pre-RFD post office on a farm. Mangoe (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is easy. The history books tell us that this article is a falsehood. Hancock's 1913 Past and present volume 1 in the chapter on Ludlow Township on page 273 says "No villages have ever been laid out in this township" and "A postoffice called Ludlow was kept at the house of H. G. Grattan, postmaster, on the Waukon and Postville road, in section 10, for about twelve years, being discontinued prior to 1882". This is verifiably not an "unincorporated community" within the Township. This chapter is about Ludlow Township, Allamakee County, Iowa of course, where such information belongs. Uncle G (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ludlow Township, Allamakee County, Iowa. I found a few references to Ludlow in obituaries, but that's about it, and for all I know those were references to the township too. Not sure how a century-old rural post office name ended up on modern county highway maps, but that seems to be what happened here. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Agree with Uncle G and TheCatalyst31 RickH86 (talk) 11:39, 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.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lycurgus, Iowa[edit]

Lycurgus, Iowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Another post office, now the location of a closed church. This page claims that there had been a store and hotel very early on, but it's hardly a source we can use, and at any rate it states that these businesses failed quickly. Mangoe (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hancock's Past and Present confirms the church, independent school district, and the post-office, but doesn't actually mention what, if any, settlement there was or give in-depth information about any of them except for a slight amount about the 1913 demolition of the church. Fitch's 1910 Past and present of Fayette County happens to mention that someone was "a native of Lycurgus", but again doesn't actually tell us the basic piece of information that is missing. Hair's 1865 Iowa State Gazetteer says post-office. The 1916 Lippincott's says "post-hamlet", which from other research seems to be one step down from "post-village". So it's in lists of school districts and post-offices, and we know the name of its church and that it is one step down from a village. I haven't found any in-depth history on the level of, say, Oakfield, Iowa (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete per WP:GEOLAND, at least for now until more information can be found. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I've added some, it clear was and is a recognize small rural community.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• comment This is the kind of maybe-a-place that makes me uncomfortable about the standards behind WP:GEOLAND. "Unincorporated community" is still a euphemism: for places that are do not have definite boundaries but which anyone driving through would recognize as towns or cities, we use (or should use) those words. When we come upon something like this, where there is only an isolated church now and where there were short-lived businesses which may not have been nearby, and a post office which lived in whatever place was convenient enough, it's an act of a certain degree of research to assemble this into a town. I've skipped over a number of these Iowa places where you can see, from the air, that there is some concentration of dwellings and businesses, generally with side streets and the like. But when we come to something like this where I can't find any evidence of such a concentration, and nobody comes right out and says it was there, I'm really hard-pressed to agree that it is a former settlement— and it plainly is not a present one. Mangoe (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Places like this one in the midwestern United States essentially became "communities" because settlers moved in, in the mid 1800s, in large farming lots, and frankly, they needed to have names for places. A church, a post office, a school, a general store with the post office, these became a place name to apply to the community around that area. In U.S. midwest counties that are just a mass of flat of open land, the people 10 miles NE of the county seat had a kinship apart from those 10 miles SE of the county seat. Often, the establishment of a post office established an identity for the community. Thus, one can find tons of references in obituaries to people being born in Lycurgus, or married in Lycurgus, or growing up in Lycurgus. Does this make it a community worthy of Wikipedia recognition? I think so. If the US postal service had invented Rural Free Delivery earlier, it may be an open question as to whether many of these place names would have ever been created. But we live in a time where the living patterns of the midwest US have drastically changed. Populations have decreased, the larger towns have more of the share of the population, farms have consolidated, schools have consolidated. The way of life in, say, 1900 in these areas is simply gone, forever.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Milowent's excellent research and additions to the article. There's no doubt this was more than a post office, as St. Mary's Church became known as the Lycurgus Church; Rand McNally considered it a community in 1903, and there was a school that operated until the 1960s. Sources noted the community at the time, and notability is not temporary. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Milowent's comments above. I wish we could get more county historical societies in Iowa to engage/assist with Wikipedia articles in the respective county. They often have materials that would be helpful that are not necessarily online. RickH86 (talk) 11:35, 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 Lafayette Township, Allamakee County, Iowa.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson Corner, Iowa[edit]

Thompson Corner, Iowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The east end of Elon Drive, at which intersection was (at least since 1940) and is a pair of farms, the ancestor of one presumably housing the eponymous Mr. Thompson. Clearly not a town. Mangoe (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The non-GNIS source is a passing mention stating that Mr. Thompson settled at what became Thompson Corner. Newspapers.com brings up fairly little, mainly names of roads and a few references to "the Thompson corner". USGS's Iowa Geographic Names from the 1980s calls it a locale (geography) No results in 1880s county history. Willing to revisit if additional evidence appears, but I'm not seeing an indication that this is a notable location. Hog Farm _Talk 22:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Hancock's 1913 Past and Present of Allamakee County, Iowa says "the house at Thompson's Corners", singular, was the only other one between Lansing and some homestead 10 miles away. The history books actually tell us that there was no "unincorporated community" there. M. Thompson's house is otherwise not documented in detail by history, so there isn't a possibility of refactoring here, as there sometimes is for rubbish "unincorporated community" articles. Uncle G (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Lafayette Township, Allamakee County, Iowa. No source that I can find lists this as a town; not even a hamlet. 1886 plat maps don't show it, 1917 plat maps don't show it, and 1950s plat maps don't show it. One of the best sources for these turn-of-the-century Iowa hamlets is Cram's Modern Atlas (1902), which lists hamlets down to the single digits, but there's no entry for Thompson's Corners/Thompsons Corner. There's a brief mention of a church at Thompson's Corners in the above-mentioned 1913 book (on page 281), but a cabin and a church a community do not make. This appears to have been a locality and not really a community, and never was a community, as far as I can find. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Firsfron of Ronchester RickH86 (talk) 11:29, 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Momo Thomas[edit]

Momo Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable college athlete, some minor coverage in newspapers but it's all local to where he played along with some prep coverage, fails WP:GRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH. SportingFlyer T·C 18:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He was on track to stardom during his early career (see stats here) but multiple injuries cut short his career.The short career makes it a closer call but I'm still finding enough SIGCOV to push him over the GNG bar. There's a ton of SIGCOV in the Fort Collins newspaper. E.g. part 1/part 2, part 1/part 2, and this. Also finding some SIGCOV from outside Fort Collins. E.g., this, this, and this. Cbl62 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• He did nothing of note. WP:NCOLLATH requires national coverage to guarantee notability. The Loveland newspaper is the one down the road from Fort Collins. The Denver story is routine and transactional. I'm not sure about Orlando, but he's from Kissimmee. This is exceptionally WP:ROUTINE. SportingFlyer T·C 23:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NCOLLATH is an inclusionary standard, not an exclusionary one. No one argues that he passes NCOLLATH. The issue is GNG, and he clearly passes that standard with SIGCOV in multiple (at least four), reliable, and independent sources. There are multiple articles on Momo in the Denver press -- here's another. Cbl62 (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is yet another feature story on Momo that is not from Fort Collins or Colorado. Maybe you would consider just withdrawing this one? Cbl62 (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree strongly with your reliance on WP:ROUTINE. The sources presented include features stories focused exclusively on Momo. Such coverage is the antithesis of WP:ROUTINE. Cbl62 (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG based on sources found by Cbl62. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:47, 3 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 16:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weldons, California[edit]

Weldons, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The last sentence gets down to most of the truth: "Weldons was a passenger stop on the Ventura and Ojai Valley Railroad[.]" The rest is hidden in a reference footnote: it is the location of the the Ventura City water treatment plant. Other than that, well, searching has a lot of noise, but legit hits don't give any impression that this was a town of any sort; at present, the waterworks are on the west side of the road, and some sort of orchard is on the other. Mangoe (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a shame that Weldon Canyon ignores this Weldon Canyon, where the San Buenaventura Mission Aqueduct existed until 1900, where Weldon Canyon Creek (intermittently) flows, where veins of asphalt were reported in a 1901 survey, where Union Oil drilled for oil in 1951, and which developers tried to turn into a landfill in 1996. But then there's the local businessman J. M. Sharp who bought the Weldon Ranch in 1882, as noted in the History of Ventura County, California, and indeed the Peoples Lumber Company whose manager, one J. M. Sharp, mined shale in the canyons.

  Maybe the railway isn't the important bit at all.

  Uncle G (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Greenwood, Roberta S.; Gessler, N. (1968). "The Mission San Buenaventura Aqueduct with Particular Reference to Fragments at Weldon Canyon". Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly. 4 (4): 61–86.
  • Wood, B. D. (1912). "Weldon Canyon Creek". Gazetteer of Surface Waters in the Pacific Coast Draining Basin and the Great Basin, California. Water-supply Paper. Vol. 296. Washington: United States Geological Survey. p. 233.
  • Crump, John (1957). "The History of the Peoples Lumber Company". Ventura County Historical Society Quarterly. 3 (1). Ventura County Historical Society: 12.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Wark[edit]

Wesley Wark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject of the article does not meet the Wikipedia notability threshold. The article contains no evidence of any of the eight criteria for academics:

The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

In fact, the individual appears to have retired from a career in academia without ever being promoted to full professor. Instant Comma (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a large percentage of tenured Canadian professors do not make it to the full professor category, so that's not particularly relevant. Regarding notability, a search turns up the fact that until fairly recently he was widely cited in the media as a security expert. The 1985 book cited in the article has something like ten indepentent reviews. When you put those together he meets GNG. --- Possibly (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make that "When you put those together he meets the WP:NAUTHOR SNG", as David Epstein points out below.--- Possibly (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR. Most of his books are edited not authored, but with many reviews for the authored book and multiple reviews each of three edited books, I think there is a good case for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per NAUTHOR. He is also frequently cited in Canadian media as a security expert.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comment: If we are going to assess him as an author and not an academic, does he meet the criteria for WP:AUTHOR? Is he an important figure or widely cited? Certainly, the article doesn't suggest so. Did he originate a significant new concept? There is no evidence of that. In fact, the article doesn't even mention the argument of his one authored book. Is that one authored book a significant or well-known work? Again, there is no evidence of that in the article, beyond the listing of academic reviews. Do the reviews say that it is a significant work? Once again, no evidence of that in the article. It is true, as Possibly notes above, that many Canadian academics are never promoted to full professor. It is equally true that most Canadian associate professors do not have and do not merit a Wikipedia article. Instant Comma (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the cited reviews. "Interesting and well-researched piece of work" is a typical comment. The Ultimate Enemy is a standard scholarly monograph, like thousands of others that are published every year by university presses across the world, works that are sold almost solely to university libraries. Certainly, we could write a Wikipedia article for the authors of each of those books, but wouldn't that require us to rewrite the notability criteria? Instant Comma (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to belabour the point, but I just went to the faculty listing for the history department at the University of Toronto, where Wark taught. Dimitry Anastakis is a full professor there, he holds an endowed chair, and has five books to his credit - but no Wikipedia entry. Daniel Bender is a full professor and Canada Research Chair with four books to his credit - but no Wikipedia entry. Mark McGowan is a full professor, former principal, author of five books, winner of multiple awards - but no Wikipedia entry. Sean Mills is a full professor and Canada research chair with six books - but no Wikipedia entry. Cecilia Morgan is a full professor with four books - but no Wikipedia entry. I could give at least ten more examples. Even in his own department, Wesley Wark wasn't particularly significant. Instant Comma (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Instant Comma please don't vote twice, your nomination already counts as a vote. As for your claims on other academics, see WP:OSE, though you do make a compelling point they pass notability and would be kept at AfD if written (e.g. name chairs pass NACADEMIC).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I am new to this process and didn't realize that I couldn't vote on an article I had nominated. I have changed my vote to a comment. Instant Comma (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A quick Canadian Proquest search finds 3,936 results, including 2,676 newspapers, 431 historical newspapers, and 373 wire feeds. Scanning down the list, all seem to be the same guy, from 1988 to last week - other than a single March 1926 hit in a Toronto Globe obituary. I've honestly never seen so many hits in a Canadian AFD. Given the comments above, I'm stopping there, saying Keep, and criticizing User:Instant Comma for a big BEFORE failure. Nfitz (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, I'm new to this, so you'll have to explain what a "big BEFORE failure" is. Instant Comma (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the shorthand, User:Instant Comma. BEFORE is WP:BEFORE; the 17 things listed at WP:AFD one should do before nominating an article for deletion. In particular D.1. It's not just enough that the article isn't good enough (and it likely wasn't). Listing at AFD requires that the article can't be improved to be good enough. If it can be improved, one should follow WP:ATD and improve the article, instead of deleting it. Nfitz (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per David Eppstein. Book has 230+ citations on GS. Dr. Universe (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Junior Fed Cup Final[edit]

2000 Junior Fed Cup Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I'm not convinced that these junior matches were notable either. Searches did not pick up any apparent significant coverage of these 3 matches in independent and reliable sources. No real claim to passing either WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-01 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russian School of Mathematics[edit]

Russian School of Mathematics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable as shown by the lack of coverage from outside sources. PaulinSaudi (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it looks like WP:GNG is satisfied. this search is showing 6 pages of relevant results in various independent news sources. I have added a few sources from the top of the search results Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:GNG is satisfied. The first nine references given are independent, they are reliable- Boston Globe, National Public Radio and substantial exposés. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is mostly promotional. It mostly sources the company itself. The Boston Globe article is behind a paywall. --PaulinSaudi (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  (1) It is bad form to vote in an AfD that you opened -- everyone understands the nominator is a delete voter. (2) You are correct that the article is overly promotional, and there is no reason to wait to start cleaning it up. (3) The fact that the article is behind a paywall is irrelevant (but you might try your local library to access it for free). --JBL (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now done the (quite simple) work of removing the silly promotional stuff. --JBL (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I am sorry that I am unfamiliar with the local customs. I regret I cannot remove my faux pas without removing your comments. So I suppose I we are stuck with my ill-advised comments. My regrets.--PaulinSaudi (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyone, including you, can strike out your vote. That's a better option then removing it and is usually what people do in such cases. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I will try. I am sorry to have violated local customs. --PaulinSaudi (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the references currently in the article establish a pass of GNG (thanks Alex Bakharev). --JBL (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - But, may be needed some clarification regarding the article name. The title of the article seems like a math education course in Russia, like A Course in Higher Mathematics. However, the opinion in this discussion is Keep anyway.--SilverMatsu (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article meets WP:GNG. AgentCody 05:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC) strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and this. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep The sourcing is of extremely questionable quality. That said, multiple references do exist. There's probably more in Russian and I don't speak Russian to find out. So I'm leaning toward an extremely weak keep. Although, I think someone voting delete would be just as valid and I wouldn't be at all upset or surprised if the article is ultimately deleted. Probably it should be. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know why, but it seems to have been removed on wikipedia.ru. I'm not sure if the content of the article covers the same topic as wikipedia.en.--SilverMatsu (talk) 05:57, 2 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.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Junior Fed Cup Final[edit]

2004 Junior Fed Cup Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD with no explanation offered. In my opinion, these two junior tennis matches did not receive any significant coverage from independent sources. Does not appear to pass WP:SPORTSEVENT or WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't see how this article would even be close to passing the WP:GNG test. HawkAussie (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm confused. The finals don't seem important, but why aren't there articles on the 2004 Junior Fed Cup itself, which could have been a more feasible article topic? The category contains 33 of these finals. Geschichte (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:21, 1 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.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Junior Fed Cup Final[edit]

2005 Junior Fed Cup Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT; coverage presented in the article and that found in a search is little more than trivial coverage and basic stats. Was PRODed but removed without offering any explanation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.Fails GNG. Of course, it's a sport event, so we have a zillion spammy articles like this that are just pure stats with no evidence of any coverage, sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Donnelly[edit]

Margaret Donnelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Résumé-like BLP of a writer and politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing our inclusion standards for any of her occupations. Her notability claim as a politician is that she once unsuccessfully ran for mayor of a city, which does not satisfy WP:NPOL; her notability claim as a writer is that she received an honorable mention (but not an actual win) for a literary award, sourced only to a non-notable and unreliable blog rather than any GNG-worthy coverage about her writing -- and other than that, the article is serving primarily as a coatrack for advertorialized plot summaries of her books and bulletpointed résumé sections rather than an encyclopedia article. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there’s an awful lot of Margaret Donnellys including several lawyers so it’s possible I’ve missed something but I don’t see anything in a search that indicates notability for this one. Also I note the article was created by a single-edit SPA. Mccapra (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I did my due diligence using various search methods and cannot find how this subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Missvain (talk) 19:52, 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.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karynn Moore[edit]

Karynn Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Non notable actor that fails to satisfy both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them and have not taken up lead or even cogent supporting roles in the movies they are featured in. A before search turns up user generated sources and self published sources which aren’t considered reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I translated the French article into English. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - After doing my due diligence, sources are primarily passing mentions. Starring in a Lifetime movie doesn't merit inclusion in Wikipedia. I don't see how the subject meets WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR at this time. Missvain (talk) 19:54, 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 Mike and Ike. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zours[edit]

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

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

Not notable but could be a redirect to Mike and Ike? Theroadislong (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - redirecting it would be helpful, can add a sentence on the main article (Mike and Ike).Tawianomlet (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect; not really much here to write home about, but the content wouldn't be out of place in another article. jp×g 22:40, 2 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) 19:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irkutsk New Airport[edit]

Irkutsk New Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG Airport was never built, is not notable, no significant coverage Rogermx (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. According to the sources stated in the Russian version of this article, the project was not cancelled. It's relevant as a large scale engineering project. The English version doesn't mention why this project is necessary, why the construction has not started yet. It's a stub, which needs improvement. Moreover, the subject is the most notable topic related to the Pozdnyakova village. The subject was featured in the Baikal Economic Forum in 2008. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As I noted when I removed the nominator's prod, there are plenty of reliable, independent sources in the Russian version of this article to establish WP:GNG. If you want more than what's there, you can at least go there to get the Russian text to search for additional articles, of which there are plenty. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on a cursory glance at the Russian Wikipedia and a quick spot check of two of the sources there - I don't speak Russian but the Russian article appears to pass English language WP:GNG, making this article need expansion, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strassburg tablet[edit]

Strassburg tablet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A Google and a Scholar Google do not provide any reference for "the Strasburg tablet". After having removed an irrelevant reference and a spam, it remains only one source, which refers to several Strasburg tablets. Moreover the source does not describe the content of the tablet, but provide only an interpretation (WP:OR) of this content in modern terms, without any way to verify the correctness of this interpretation.

If the tablet is correctly described, it deserve to have a Wikipedia article, but the available information is not sufficient D.Lazard (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The one source points to a book Strassburger Keilschrifttexte in sumerischer und babylonischer Sprache by Carl Frank, doi:10.1515/9783111695891. One of its chapters "Sechs mathematische Texte" looks likely to be relevant but I don't appear to have subscription access (and anyway it would be in German, a language I don't read). But the article as it is now (or before the bad reference cruft was removed) does not clearly identify a tablet or point to sources useful for identifying the tablet. If this is notable, there is nothing present to build on as the base of a usable article, so we may as well delete unless/until someone identifies this more clearly. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm torn, because I do feel like this tablet exists, and if so, should theoretically be notable and be cited in multiple sources. However, a moderate search turns up a few mentions here or there, more as a trivia mention in articles and never discussed in depth. I hope someone can find more info on this, but as it stands, I'd vote to delete, or at least redirect to Babylonian mathematics and include relevant info there. Angryapathy (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the tablet appears to exist and the collection of tablets may be notable, but the lead of the article is unsourced and so possibly inaccurate. There appear to have been six Strasbourg tablets, so the article title should probably be Strasbourg xxx, where xxx is the number of the tablet the Strasbourg mathematical tablets. The mathematical problem is discussed on pages 9 and 10 of the following JSTOR paper

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2304569

Title: History of Mathematics Before the Seventeenth Century

Author(s): Raymond Clare Archibald

Source: The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 56, No. 1, Part 2: Outline of the History of

Mathematics (Jan., 1949), pp. 7-34

Published by: Mathematical Association of America TSventon (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Amended based on my comment below. TSventon (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However, this article does not describe the content of tablet, but starts from a transcription in modern terms that are certainly not in the tablet. So, the accuracy of the description of the mathematics of the tablet is certainly doubtful. D.Lazard (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D.Lazard Is there a policy on use of translations or transcriptions? The article is a chapter of a published book, republished in an academic journal so it looks like a reliable source. The book has references, but only the numbers are included in the journal version. The reference you removed as irrelevant contains the problem, but is a university mathematics problem sheet and thus not a reliable source. TSventon (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• TSventon, Archibald's paper and book are certainly reliable for the analysis of the mathematical problem(s) attributed to the tablet. But certainly not for the assertion that the tablet describes this problem. Interpreting mathematics of cuneiform tablet is a very difficult task and generally requires the work of many specialist before reaching a consensus on their interpretation. In any case, this cannot be done without a clear description of the tablet, and a literate translation of it. Both are lacking in Archibald's work. This must be compared with the numerous articles on Plimpton 322 bibliography. In particular, the articles of Eleanor Robson in this bibliography show clearly what is a reliable source in this area. Archibald is definitively not a reliable source for a cuneiform tablet. D.Lazard (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D.Lazard, the name "the Strassburg tablet" seems to be an error as I explain under my comment. Also most of the existing article seems to be incorrect, so deletion is probably the best option. However I think that the the notability of the Strasbourg mathematical tablets could be established by coverage in multiple general histories, which they have. Not all articles need to be as long and technical as Plimpton 322. Wikipedia:No original research applies to ideas for which no reliable sources exist, not to interpretations found in reliable sources, like the problem included in the article. TSventon (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There seem to be six mathematical tablets in the Bibliothèque nationale et universitaire, Strasbourg collection, the "Sechs mathematische Texte" noted above. There are pictures on the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative website, https://cdli.ucla.edu/ with reference numbers BNUS 362, BNUS 363, BNUS 364, BNUS 366, BNUS 367 and BNUS 368. Other sources use Strassburg or Strasbourg 362, etc. They are discussed in The Mathematics of Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, India, and Islam: A Sourcebook, ed Victor J. Katz, 2007 (Google Books snippet view) and Reading Strasbourg 368: A Thrice-Told Tale J Ritter, 2004 (Researchgate). So a useful article could probably be written by someone with access to a specialist library, but this is currently not a useful article. TSventon (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I have established that the source of most of the article was the Homework for Chapters 1 - 3 of the Spring 2009 Math 467 course at Sam Houston State University, which includes "An old Babylonian geometry problem is the following, found on the Strassburg tablet of about 1800 BC" (reference removed).^[1]

The university website at https://www.shsu.edu/kws006/Math_History/Math_History_home.html shows that in 2010 the course was using An Introduction to the History of Mathematics by Howard Eves, Jamie H. Eves, 1990 (Google Books snippet view). This has an example on page 58 "The algebraic character of Babylonian geometry problems is illustrated by the following , found on a Strassburg tablet of about 1800 B . C . " An area A , consisting of the sum of two squares is 1000 . The side of one square is 10 less than 2/3 of the side of the other square . What are the sides of the squares ? " ".

The other content may have come from a History of Algebra on the dipity website, which was apparently a free tool for making timelines, which is obviously not a reliable source (reference removed).

The remaining reference is a 1936 journal article, where pages 72 to 75 discuss Strasbourg tablets 262, 263 and 264, referenced to Neugebauer's Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Mathematik, Astronomie und Physik and Vorlesungen über Geschichte der antiken mathematischen Wissenschaften, which does not support the detail of the article.^[2]

David Eppstein, Angryapathy I have done some research above and "the Strassburg tablet" seems to be an error based on a university problem sheet. TSventon (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D.Lazard I have added back the reference to a homework sheet, together with an unreliable source template, as it seems to be the immediate source of the mathematical problem and also of the term "the Strassburg tablet". TSventon (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There was not a single, individual "Strassburg tablet", and the contents of the collection of tablets (Strasbourg 362 through 368) can be described in an article like Babylonian mathematics. XOR'easter (talk) 22:14, 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 merge to Empire of the Petal Throne. Missvain (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Nightmare Maze of Jigrésh[edit]

The Nightmare Maze of Jigrésh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

So so so many adventures have been published for various RPGs, there's no reason each needs its own page unless it's exceptionally notable. I'm not seeing notability for this one. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to Empire of the Petal Throne per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Empire of the Petal Throne - That one, small Capsule Review is not enough to sustain an independent article, and I can not find any additional coverage on the product. It is probably worth a mention on the main article on the game it goes with, though. Rorshacma (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mårten Palme[edit]

Mårten Palme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject only seems notable for being with his very famous father on the night he was killed. I did not see enough sourcing to establish NPROF. GNG fail. --- Possibly (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn--- Possibly (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article sure makes it look like what the nom is saying is true, but GS says the subject has 7000+ citations and an h-index of 35. So there's probably some NACADEMIC notability criteria satisfied if you look deeper. Dr. Universe (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Universe: I am happy to withdraw if someone can dig out that academic notability; I am not so good in Dutch.--- Possibly (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - For now per Dr. Universe comment. Per sources available already. WP:GNG. Will see what I can do to find additional material as well.BabbaQ (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, based on citation record meets NSCHOLAR#1. Coverage of him, in the context of his father, which is quite copious (given Assassination of Olof Palme is a JFK level event) only adds to notability and does not detract from meeting NPROF.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. According to RePEc [7] he is the #37 economist in Sweden, putting him in the top 5% of economists in the country. I think that should be easily good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn I'll withdraw but note that there is still nothing sourced about his academic career in the article. --- Possibly (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DVDpedia[edit]

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

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

Advertorial-like article created with strong possibility of COI. Tagged as unreferenced since 2012. Product is not notable and highly unlikely that it can justified as such. Mansheimer (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm surprised this article has been around for as long as it has, but I guess that's what happens when something has only one incoming link. I wasn't able to locate significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources, and the company is not notable, so neither WP:GNG nor WP:NPRODUCT are met here. DanCherek (talk) 06:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Richardsons Movie[edit]

The Richardsons Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This would have been A7able on other subject matter, but A7 does not apply to film. No indication of significance, does not pass GNG nor NFILM. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFF. LizardJr8 (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. [original rationale redacted] • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• rewording: No reliable source evidence found to pass WP:NFILM, WP:NFF or even WP:V. No trace of this film found outside Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NFF. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yeah, doesn't pass WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Barely found anything about the movie. Easily fails WP:NFF. If only there's a WP:CSD for films and TV shows, then this would've been qualified. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Software Testing Qualifications Board[edit]

American Software Testing Qualifications Board (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Sources are all either not independent or minor/trivial mentions. Lack of in-depth coverage. MB 15:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MB 15:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MB 15:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I could not find significant coverage of the organisation itself, merely passing mentions (and only a handful of those). firefly ( t · c ) 10:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – occasional trivial mentions don't contribute to notability, particularly under WP:NORG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:46, 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. Although copying content from another language Wikipedia is acceptable (provided the translation is accurate), in this case the consensus is that the German version also fails to demonstrate notability.  JGHowes  ^talk 02:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenz Mack[edit]

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

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

This figure appears to fall well short of WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. I have not been able to locate any WP:SECONDARY source mentions of him beyond two publications from 1953 [8] and 1956 [9] supplied by the editor who created the article. Further, while the first is a review, the second appears to be an entry in a list-like "handbook". I see no indication that this figure was ever influential or widely commented upon by peers, or that his work was ever well known. The other refs supplied by the article's creator are simply primary bios like [10] and [11], and whatever this is: [12], as well as a passing mention in a 1955 bibliography: [13] In short, it does not seem that WP:THREE can be satisfied here. Generalrelative (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This was a bad copy and paste of the German Wikipedia article which contains no sources [14]. The article creator has merely copied that article and added any random source that mentions Lorenz Mack he could find. The sources are in German but some of them do not match the content and they are not reliable. It seems they are randomly scattered on the article which no care for accuracy. The only reliable source I could see was the book review on JSTOR. I don't think there are enough reliable sources to establish a biography for Lorenz Mack. One small review for one of his novels from the 1950s is not enough. It explains why the German Wikipedia article is entirely unsourced. I will also like to note that website de.zxc.wiki is a bad website filled with malware (it appears to be some sort of mirror of Wikipedia but is filled with adverts). It was linked on the article and I just removed it. I had to reboot my computer after clicking on that website. I do not think this article was written in good faith, it comes across as a quick copy and paste/spam job (even the links cited in the weblinks reads as spam) its almost like the article creator just wanted this article created on the English Wikipedia with no care for accuracy. I hate to be negative but this is not good editing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  JGHowes  ^talk 02:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Schmidt-Koschella[edit]

Sabrina Schmidt-Koschella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Some press releases, primary sourcing and brief mentions. Currently, the article does not have a single in-depth reference from an independent, reliable source. And google searches found none either. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Failed to find any reliable secondary sources discussing the subject at great length. Might be WP:TOOSOON (or not) for the subject. If she becomes an ambassador, it would be a different story. Missvain (talk) 19:57, 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 15:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Airborne (band)[edit]

Airborne (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I endeavored to improve this long-deficient article after voting in this related AfD, but could find nothing reliable about the band. According to their own website, they are from Connecticut and mostly play local summer festivals and charity events. Despite 30+ years and at least 10 studio albums, reliable and significant media coverage has eluded them, and most of their media presence is in the form of industry directory entries and mirror sites that repeat this article's unverified claims. One German jazzbo site has reviewed a couple of their albums: [15], [16]. It is possible that they were named #1 in jazz by the pre-Internet Musician magazine, but I cannot confirm, and the "World Peace Organization" that supposedly gave them an award is itself barely present on the Internet and may not exist. Some of the other "Awards" listed in the article are just invitations to join committees. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: They survived an earlier AfD in 2006, when music notability guidelines were much more lenient. For instance, the band and several albums have empty placeholders at AllMusic but those are no longer sufficient. Also, the article's creator and most frequent editor is "Tborino" which happens to be the name of one of the band members. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I initially confused them with the Australian hard rock band, and I thought "why is this on an Afd?" But then I realized that their name is spelled with a "u", so that's that. But yeah, I am not seeing much notability here, the COI editing being the worst culprit. And I understand how different the music notability guidelines were back in 2006, but keeping it just because there are blank Allmusic entries...that's very odd, imo. Blank Allmusic is no support for notability, it is in fact nothing. I then noticed that although the blank Allmusic page was cited as a "notability-establishing source", but even then were ones who knew that a blank AM entry is no support for notability, so at the end, it was kept on the grounds that they have released music on Tilt Records, which is a red link, so I can't say it's a notable label. So unless there are print sources (which I can't track down), I vote delete. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The 2006 AfD seems to have swayed to keep because their recordings appear on Tilt Records, but that is owned by the band's keyboard player ([17]) so does not support WP:MUSICBIO criterion 5 notability. Setting aside the article's prior use as a WP:COI promotional vehicle (most recently [18]), the uncited awards are unlikely to be intrinsically notable and, while there are the 2 reviews on the smooth-jazz.de site discussed in this AfD nomination, searches are not finding the coverage needed to demonstrate WP:MUSICBIO notability. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]