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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shohel Mondol[edit]

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

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

A non-notable actor with no significant roles in multiple notable films. Sources present in the article do not satisfy WP:GNG for significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable and due to the lack of sources fails the General Notability. 007sak (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umekichi[edit]

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

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

No significant coverage per WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete A 3 sentence article with a single questionable source. Delete per WP:PROMO, WP:N etc. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I checkered out her biography in Japanese Wikipedia. The Japanese article looks good. I tried to add her discography to English article but I couldn't. I think she is notable but article was poorly written.Misasory (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The person might be notable or not, but the article is improperly written and there are no good sources to back up. I even tried searching Google for some informations, but I couldn't find something tangible. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Misasory: Could you provide a link to the Japanese Wikipedia article? There are too many results when I just searched うめきち, I don't know which one is the correct one. I'd also like to do a search on google.co.jp, as a search on google.com probably won't get anything useful, but I don't know what search terms to use. Mlb96 (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind, I found it, it's ja:檜山うめ吉. The Japanese article is actually just as bad as the English one; it includes nothing more than a brief bio and a discography, without citing a single source. A search on google.co.jp for 檜山うめ吉 didn't get anything useful. I found an Oricon profile for her, but it's completely empty aside from two television appearances in 2009. In conclusion, she fails NMUSIC and GNG. Delete. Mlb96 (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Basically a stub, poorly referenced (like stated above), plus no one has added content to the article (not counting bots) for years; no sign of any major future activity or improvement. Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 22:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Curbon7 (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Highway 13 (1936–1951)[edit]

North Carolina Highway 13 (1936–1951) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unnotable historic designation which doesn't follow any significant modern routes. The article itself is based entirely on maps, and it appears that no other reliable sources concerning the highway exist. Philroc (c) 22:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: While I might be biased in this matter, I do believe this article is encyclopedic. While the route was rather short, it did exist for a span of over 15 years and it was part of the North Carolina State Highway System. As for "it doesn't follow any significant modern routes", this article appears to be relatively similar, but has achieved GA Status. Maps are often the best source we can get in North Carolina for historic state routes, but I don't think that discounts the article's validity. It did exist for 15 years, so its incredibly unlikely it was a misprint or something of the sorts.--Ncchild (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, Although I am not thinking that it definitely fails WP:NROAD, I don't think the GA review highlighted above is a particularly good example, as standards around a decade ago weren't quite as stringent as now and it didn't seem like much of a review. This article is very similar, in that it doesn't assert notability in secondary sources. Something existing alone generally isn't sufficient on minor roads. I am somewhat on the fence. I don't know if this and this is the same highway, but if so it talks about a proposed extension so are at least worth a mention as secondary sources? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bungle: As far as I can tell, both of those articles are referring to the extension of U.S. Route 13 into North Carolina, which was the main reason for Highway 13's elimination. Philroc (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Philroc: Hence why I said I "didn't know" if it related to the same highway, however if you're suggesting (I assume with better knowledge than me of the US highway system) that the extension to another highway was significant in the demise of this one, I guess it's still worth inclusion? That was just from a very quick search and although I am slightly confused by what seems to be a very similar naming system for what you suggest are alternate highways, I am still inclined to weakly support retaining this one. The over reliance on maps is a concern, but not in itself a sufficient deletion rationale. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—still a part of the history of the state's highway system worth including if we're going to have a comprehensive history of that system. Attempting to merge it someplace will result in WP:SIZE and WP:UNDUE issues, so it should remain as its own article. Imzadi 1979 → 16:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is a legitimate member of the list set North Carolina Highway 13 and, per Imzadi1979, is needed for completeness. Notability is not temporary and the route was part of the state highway system, so WP:GEOROAD is satisfied and WP:V is met based on the official state maps. Whether any of the roadways used as part of that route are currently part of the state highway system is irrelevant. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it is a legitimate historical article part of a set.Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EVie (company)[edit]

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

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

extremely small exrtemely local company--the only reason I can figure out for it getting any press attention at all is because its so absurdly insignificant. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Non notable organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them + what DGG said. Celestina007 (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the responses to the first nomination and the sources added by Jèrriais janne at then. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Local coverage only - fails WP:AUD. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 11:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has received coverage in national news - see the BBC article - and significant coverage in regional news - many of the sources are regional, covering the whole Channel Islands region. Jèrriais janne (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Furthermore, it has received coverage in an international electric mobility news source: https://www.electrive.com/2020/01/21/channel-island-jersey-installs-first-e-car-club-evie/, as cited in the article. Jèrriais janne (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to say that it is slightly ridiculous that this article has been renominated for deletion just four days after a consensus decision was reached to keep the article. This is in contravention of WP:RENOM which states at least six months should be left, especially if there is no "new" reason for renomination, which in both cases is an alleged lack of sources. Jèrriais janne (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call this national news. Every story that BBC Jersey runs online is published on bbc.co.uk, but that doesn't mean it has had any national exposure such as being featured on the www.bbc.co.uk/news home page. That article is clearly based on an Evie news release and doesn't constitute WP:SECONDARY coverage, so I would say does not contribute towards WP:NCORP. The piece in Electrive is based on the BBC Jersey and ITV Channel Islands coverage and the Evie website as can be seen at the bottom of the article. It adds nothing to that coverage other than the author's comment 'by then, we would expect to see some charging infrastructure' - I wouldn't count that as secondary coverage. Arguably, Electrive may fall under 'media of limited interest and circulation' per WP:AUD - it reaches 20,000 'experts in electric mobility'. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Does not meet WP:COMPANY criteria. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 16:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- It has coverage from both national and local news and those are reliable sources. It meets WP:NCORP guidelines. It should be kept. Mommmyy (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Mommmyy which references meet NCORP guidelines? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria.
  • This from ChannelEye is a puff piece based entirely on a Q&A interview with the founder with no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This from BBC News is based on a company announcement, same day as ITV News and this electrive.com article. No "Independent Content", the three articles regurgitate the same information provided by the company, they fail WP:ORGIND.
  • This from Bailiwick Express is another pre-launch puff piece based entirely on an interview with company executives and other stakeholders, no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This from ITV.com is based on a tweet from the company showing the bikes arriving. No attributed journalist. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND.
  • Another from the Bailiwick Express with no attributed journalist, based entirely on information provided by the company with no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND and WP:SIGCOV.
  • ITV News, no attributed journalist, reads like a status update from the company, total length 3 sentences and a quote, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • Yet another from Bailiwick Express, also reads like a status update, appears to be based on tweets and other information provided by the company, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND
  • Final ITV News "article", no attributed journalist, 5 sentences, third sentence starts with "EVie says...", fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH

We don't care about the volume of mentions or "articles", we need quality in-depth articles with "Independent Content", journalists or somebody within the article has to provide their own opinion, analysis, etc and don't just create more noise from the company's echo chamber. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Science Projects[edit]

New Science Projects (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 a notable band. I'm barely convinced it wasn't a Spinal Tap-style performance art hoax band. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article almost reads like a promotional piece for the band. They seem to have received some minor coverage in the DFW area, but not enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 19:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin.com[edit]

Bitcoin.com (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:CORPDEPTH Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a legitimate, notable company, as several secondary and tertiary sources demonstrate (thereby passing WP:PSTS), and contra the accusation of WP:CORPS, at least a few of these sources are more than mere mentions (e.g., the Business Insider article about the former CTO and the Bloomburg interview with the mining exec). Most of the improvement tags on the article are old and have since been rectified, meaning the page is actively managed. (For example, the content that read "like an advertisement" has since been fixed.) That said, it is still just a stub, but that means WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM rather than send to AfD. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. had me fooled for a second. This is different than the BITCOIN itself. Someone random grabbed the domain. However, I was able to find 2 additional WSJ articles and added them. it's definitely notable. Lesliechin1 (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it is a notable company with many sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 19:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kim zəngin olmaq istəyir? Milyonların Şousu[edit]

Kim zəngin olmaq istəyir? Milyonların Şousu (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. There is not a single news coverages. Trakinwiki (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sources appear to have been added since nomination, now there are multiple news sources. matt91486 (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but after the author posted that, another editor *did* add sources to the page. matt91486 (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respectful experts, I am that page's author. Recently, I found more references and added them. Any information which need to be added can be asked in my talk page. Ahp (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the problem highlighted by the AfD nominator is addressed after addition of references and news coverage by the creator. 42.106.205.135 (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with the new sources, which are enough to independently verify. --Lockley (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Talent Magazine[edit]

Indian Talent Magazine (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 publication. The sources provided are almost all useless, with two being 404-compliant. I am willing to bet there are useful sources in the Dravidian languages (which I can't read and Google Translate tends to do a terrible job of), but based on the article as it presently stands and the search results in English (string: "indian talent magazine") I must argue for deletion at this time. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All of the cited references are unreliable and does not pass General Notability. Also done Google search in the native language and no result was found. Clearly non-notable 007sak (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not seeing significant coverage in independent reliable sources for this magazine Ravensfire (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G5. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajneesh Kumar Saxena[edit]

Rajneesh Kumar Saxena (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:NPOL. I cannot find coverage that satisfies WP:NBASIC. This page has been repeatedly recreated by socks in the past at various venues (see here), so I would recommend a WP:SALT as well. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: G5 tag was applied following an investigation viewable at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RAJNEESHKSAXENA. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Couch Guy[edit]

Couch Guy (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 appears to be a classic case of WP:BLP1E. Reliable sources only cover the individual in the context of a single event, the individual otherwise appears to remain a low-profile individual, and the event itself (a man sitting on a couch with three girls and his girlfriend showing up) does not bear encyclopedic significance. As a result, I believe that this article should be deleted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely an argument to be made that the event does not bear encyclopedic significance; however, I wrote the page not because it was simply "a man sitting on a couch . . . and his girlfriend showing up" but the fact that it spawned a trend with an audience of several millions and achieved significant media attention as an example of the toxicity of Internet sleuthing. NovumChase (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom ... this is just about as BLP1E as it gets; if not a BLP, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies Chetsford (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC); edited 17:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment that my creation of the page was intended to cover the viral video and trend (colloquially called "Couch Guy"), not the individual, who would indeed fail to meet the standards of WP:BLP1E. The page was meant to be in description of an event itself—hence the descriptions of parodies and reactions to the video. I have made an edit to improve clarity that the page is about the video colloquially called Couch Guy. NovumChase (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @NovumChase: If that is your intent, then I would point towards WP:EVENTCRIT: [r]outine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

  This clearly falls under the scope of "viral phenomena" and I don't think that there's something further gives them additional enduring significance. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and I believe that the article should still be deleted.

  For clarity's sake, the first sentence of the article at the time of its nomination for deletion read Couch Guy refers to Robbie McCoy, the subject of a TikTok video posted by college student Lauren Zarras on September 21, 2021. I think it was reasonable to read it as being about the person who was the subject of the viral video at that time. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct and certainly my mistake—it was a failure of clarity on my part. I meant for the article to refer to Robbie McCoy only in the context of being a subject of the Couch Guy video. NovumChase

With regard to WP:NOTNEWS, I respectfully disagree with its use to dismiss this particular article—though minor trends should certainly be excluded from Wikipedia, I feel that media coverage has been significant enough to justify the inclusion of "Couch Guy". Just because something is a viral phenomenon does not mean it cannot be included on Wikipedia—well established pages for viral phenomena certainly exist, as with Chewbacca Mask Lady, devious licks and countless others. NovumChase (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my above comments. I certainly understand the original nomination for deletion, as obscure wording inappropriately suggested that the subject of the article was Robbie McCoy, who bears vastly insufficient notability. However, having fixed the unclear nature of the opening line and clarified that the Couch Guy article refers to the video with over 60 million views and the trend with over 1 billion views and significant media coverage, I feel that deletion is inappropriate. NovumChase (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in accordance with reasons listed. NovumChase (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I denied this for speedy deletion because it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. However I feel this run afoul of WP:BLP1E. This person appears to be famous for one event and that event is having a look on his face. This is a private individual and the coverage amounts to gossip, and coverage about the gossip. I don't feel it warrants and article, nor should we be participating in this phenomenon. I feel this is exactly the sort of thing our "Subjects notable only for one event" section of BLP was created for.

BLP applies even if the primary subject of the article is not the person. That being said the topic of the video and the topic of the guy is all but the same. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly merit to that "gossip, and coverage about the gossip" is undeserving of an encyclopedic entry. However, in creating the page (as I have no connection to nor strong feelings about the subject), I was following what I perceived to be a pattern of long-standing Wikipedia articles covering viral Internet trends, even when about one-time events or individuals otherwise unnoteworthy (such as Dancing Uncle (Sanjeev Shrivastva), Rappin' for Jesus and Damn Daniel), so long as they are sufficiently spread as trends and viral phenomena and receive adequate media coverage. I definitely understand the opposition, but feel that there is definitely precedent for an entry like this.

Either way, I'm not particularly keen to die fighting on a hill for "Couch Guy" deserving a Wikipedia article. Just explaining my motivation for writing it and pointing to other examples on Wikipedia. NovumChase (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not run on precedent thankfully. The fact that other comparable stuff exists does not mean that this meets the policy requirements that the community has come to a consensus to enforce. Frankly I would be more inclined to revisited the articles you mention and see if they actually meet our criteria. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, and completely fair. As stated in my last line above, I was not hoping to use precedent in defense of the article—as I said, I was just explaining why it at first seemed fit to make it. I had seen a pattern of Wikipedia fielding those articles and felt compelled to write on the recent trend.

That said, I respect the various reasons for deletion given above and will rescind my keep vote. The consensus is clearly in opposition to the article, and I regret having submitted it. NovumChase (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I posted that I had not noticed you were the author. I can understand why you felt it was an appropriate topic to write about, Wikipedia's policies are numerous and nuanced. I am sure you made this article entirely in good faith and with the benefit of the project in mind. Regardless I stand by my arguments. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Viral Video or person, both are not notable enough to be kept as an article. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the topic is notable and that the issues with the article can be solved with editing rather than deletion. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Longjia people[edit]

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

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

This page is created by Special:Contributions/Stevey7788.I guess he should be PRC, so he used many forums as references,like tieba.baidu.com bbs.tianya.cn.The edit history shows that the main editing account is Special:Contributions/Stevey7788.But he has been blocked for using sock puppets, so the page has not been updated for three years. I think if this page is not deleted, someone needs to clean up the non-english and reference. I also noticed Longjia language the main editing account is also Special:Contributions/Stevey7788.These pages all use some APA format,like by the Yi (Zhijin County Almanac 1997:159) or Zhang & Li (1982). This means that the content may have been copied from the original source. And because some don't have ISBN, website, publication information, it is difficult to confirm the reliability.

Simplify the reason for deletion, the page has some problems, and the main editor account has disappeared.

It takes a lot of time and energy to eliminate those problems, which seems to be unworthy for us. Rastinition (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What exactly are the problems with the article? If you've checked the sources and found out there has been an instance of a copyright violation (rather than merely supposing there could have been one) then the offending text can be removed. However, I'd be surprised if there were any: the article has relatively little text, but a large list of sources, and the creator was not known for copyvios.
  Or is the problem reliability? Yes, 3 of the 15 refs are to what appear like unreliable websites. If you have reasons to believe that the article content they support is dubious, you can challenge it or remove it outright. But that still leaves 12 other sources. Three of them are English books: there is full bibliographic information provided (except for the ISBN of two of them), and they all look reliable. The rest are in Chinese. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with that: sources don't have to be in English. Yes, the bibliographic information is more telegraphic, showing the title, year and pages, but no publisher. However, these are all county almanacs or district gazetteers, so I presume they should be familiar to the people who edit China-related articles. Also, there's no requirement for an article to only give the English names of entities; providing the Chinese names of places is actually helpful when these places don't (yet) have articles on Wikipedia.
  Regardless, cleanup – even if we agreed it was necessary – is no reason to delete an article. The topic is clearly notable. – Uanfala (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I don't see any problems with it that can't be fixed with some attention. The lists of place names with Chinese could be cleaned up and made clearer. Some of the sources have problems but it's got enough good published sources that it's easily notable. I can't check those sources myself, but being unable to check sources is never a reason to delete.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:3D2F:78A6:C92C:5027 (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and tag for clean-up - that's what clean-up tags are for! Iskandar323 (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. FWIW, I consider User:Stevey7788 a great net positive contributor to the coverage of languages and peoples of Mainland SE Asia & China (in spite of our occasional disagreements about the use of primary sources and blogs of subject-matter experts); the fact that he got blocked for some silly reason (*not* for sockpuppetry!) is irrelevant here. –Austronesier (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals in Zoo Tycoon 2[edit]

List of animals in Zoo Tycoon 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article has a very long history and was restored at this RfD without prejudice against a later nomination at AfD. The main concern is that it falls foul of WP:VGSCOPE, in particular #7 which is itself linked to the policy WP:NOT, in particular the sections WP:NOTDIR and WP:GAMEGUIDE, which seem relevant here. On top of that, this fails WP:LISTN due to a lack of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources and meets none of the three main purposes for lists detailed at WP:LISTPURP.

This could be a PROD but given that List of animals in Zoo Tycoon was contested I suspect this one would be too. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't realise this had an AfD before. In that case, this definitely needs AfD and not PROD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without a merge. Such a list fails WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE. Examples of more exotic animals as noted by reliable sources would be reasonable in gameplay but not a full list. --Masem (t) 15:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not suitable for a standalone article, and a list of items fails WP:GAMEGUIDE and is just WP:FANCRUFT Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:GAMECRUFT. Not even close to appropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above as pure WP:GAMECRUFT. As Masem said, if some qualification were given to certain species, maybe there'd be something to merge or redirect, but that doesn't appear to be the case. — GhostRiver 18:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This article has been active for over a decade, why do you now decide it needs to go down? This just seems rather a very extreme reaction. --Mjmannella (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Out of scope. Dronebogus (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Ajf773 (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pure WP:GAMEGUIDE content that violates WP:NOT. Fails WP:LISTN. Same as the other. -- ferret (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. This kind of content belongs to Fandom and other similar projects/wikis. Mann Mann (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom and WP:GAMEGUIDE. DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Isn't it ironic that AFDs attract a lot of opinions only when the answer is obvious or interesting? Panini!^🥪 14:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh KC[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage that are independent of the subject. DMySon (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The RS has "Santosh KC is a Nepalese folk singer who won the Radio Kantipur National Music Award for Best Male Folk Singer in 2075 BS for his song "Daai Ki Saali".^[1] He produces Teej songs every year which receive millions of views on youtube.^[2]" That is enough for a stub, except these UPE articles don't ever stop there. This is usually what happens after these articles get through AFC/AFD. It's just not worth it; readers who'd be looking for this topic will already know all we can say currently.

-- Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well if the information is enough for a stub, please let it be a stub. I Will research more on him to make it better. His works for us Nepali has a meaning as he is working to preserve our Traditional folk songs.Milan260 (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft - With a good faith on the main editor (Milan260), I think there is no harm to keep it in draft space for a while. nirmal (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Radio Kantipur National Music Award is an award given by an FM station. The source is primary. We don't have an article for the award. I don't want to say it's never enough because I am wary of the precedent. Music Awards are usually given out by FM stations; and at least some of them used to mean something; may still do. But there are far too many awards, none seem to be regular, and it's hard to say whether any of them has absolute integrity/independence. See, for example, this. So, the award, in my opinion, is not enough for WP:NMUSIC but I think it is enough for WP:ANYBIO especially with an RS saying, in a piece about Teej music, that this is one of the artists who produces popular Teej music annually. Not a slam dunk but as a way of extending significant AGF and erring on the side of inclusion. Such flexibility is, of course, not warranted when UPE and socking is involved, as it is here. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to clarify that I am not getting paid to write this article. I am doing this as a part of my project for my journalism class. Had I get paid or if I get paid for writing an article I would have no problem mentioning them. I have made a list of 10 random people from the "Nepali Lok Dohori" sector, they are well known in Nepal, however, have no internet presence whatsoever. I intend to write this article and present them along with my project.Milan260 (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems the main author Milan260 has not updated the article since a month. So,I am changing my vote to Delete because the likelyhood of improvement in future is thin.nirmal (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Milan260, if you are not paid, where did you get the information in the early life section of the article and his exact birthdate? There's also this. I don't know how anybody's journalism could be helped by writing crap supported by crap (what kind of journalists know whole life stories of barely notable people but don't know what sources are reliable?). Why didn't and don't you go to a library and find usable sources for your articles? Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olurotimi Badero[edit]

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

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

As noted on talk page by @Ewingdo:, "it does not appear this person has achieved notable coverage in the mainstream literature", so there is possibility of violation of notability guidelines. Renvoy (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Renvoy (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know of any reason why this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OloyeApesin (talk • contribs) 13:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC) — OloyeApesin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Speedy Delete - As per nom and CSD A7 No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events). Gentleman wiki (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A7 is obviously inappropriate: "the world's first and only fully trained cardio-nephrologist" is clearly a credible claim of significance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a bit torn here. He's certainly attracted some coverage in the Nigerian [1][2] and American [3] press. I understand that plenty of spam comes out of the Nigerian press, but these outlets (one of which is "Nigeria's most respected newspaper") at least seem reliable, and they have a named author in the byline. At this point, I'm leaning weak keep on the basis of the GNG, but I'm not entirely certain: perhaps I could pester Celestina007 to give an opinion on the Nigerian sources? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ, I’d say whilst I have my reservations as per the creation, creator and history of this article, a weak keep !vote is definitely apt. The ref bombing is quite tiring though but yes, in all, it’s mainspace worthy. Celestina007 (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move/redirect to History of the Rockaways from the Year 1685 to 1917. Consensus is that Bellot himself is not notable, but his book is. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred H. Bellot[edit]

Alfred H. Bellot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

He wrote a book, but there are no biographical details that would establish notability. There are no reliable / verifiable sources about him in the article, nor could I found anything in a Google search. The book he wrote is interesting, but I'm not sure that the book is notable as an alternative. Alansohn (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable for the continued significance of his 1918 book a hundred years later. This is attested by the New York Times source recently added in the article, and the fact that the book continues to be cited in scholarly works today [4], [5], ect. (more on Google Scholar). Mottezen (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mottezen, are you arguing that the book is notable or that it's the author? I would support a rename for the book with a redirect from the author. Alansohn (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alansohn I agree that the sources available discuss the book and its content more than the author. I support a rename too. Mottezen (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It sounds like the book may be notable (I haven't found enough independent secondary sourcing to confirm as much), in which case it would make sense to Redirect this article to that hypothetical article, but I'm not seeing enough material to satisfy WP:BIO here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – his arguably notable book doesn't get us anywhere, as Rhododendrites explains. A Newspapers.com search digs up a a few biographical anecdotes ([6] [7] [8]), but this is just the sort of routine ephemeral press coverage that can be found for half of all early-20th-century middle-class white American men. Per WP:NOTNEWS, it doesn't hold much sway unless there's some later secondary coverage, which is conspicuously missing here. I'm always glad to reassess if something more can be found, but as it stands I'm not seeing a claim under either WP:NAUTHOR or the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mottezen. I think we need an article for either the author or the book, though not both. The newly added sources do indeed attest the lasting significance of Bellot's work as a historian and that swings it for me. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- His only notability is as author of a book. That book is one on the local history of an area Rockaway Peninsula. It is an unusual local history that is important enough to be WP notable. However there is scope for ensuring that content from this article is used on the history section of that article and others in the area. Such local histories are abundant and almost invariably NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs). MBisanz ^talk 14:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn H. Becraft[edit]

Carolyn H. Becraft (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:BIO: Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) is not a particularly high-profile position, and the press doesn't pay much attention. (There are a number of articles about other officeholders, but let's run these two up the flagpole first and see if anybody salutes.) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Bonnie Morehouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Given every other holder of this office has an article I see little to be gained in deleting articles on two of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As I stated, these are a couple of test cases. Some of the other officeholders went on to bigger and better things, some didn't, so a mass Afd didn't seem like a good idea. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The position is an inherently notable one in my opinion. It is really only when you start getting deep into the small bureaus and agencies and sub-departments that no one's ever heard of where notability is not guaranteed via WP:NPOL; manpower is an important department within a military branch. You kind of shot yourself in the face when you jointly nominated Becraft and Morehouse. As Morehouse only served in an acting capacity and has even fewer coverage, I would be very open to a deletion discussion on Morehouse, as well as every other acting holder of this office and other offices (separate noms though please). However, Becraft is fine for the reasons I mentioned above. There are definitely better choices for a test run imo. Curbon7 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• How is a mid-level bureaucratic office inherently notable? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarityfiend, like I said it's not really mid-level. Deputy assistant secretaries are mid-level and certainly not inherent, but assistant secs seem generally fine imo. Curbon7 (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is the sourcing that supports your claim? The Celebrate Freedom profile is the only reliable, independent one so far. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean we're talking about WP:NPOL applicability, so existing sourcing isn't really in the conversation. Whether or not ministers and bureaucrats count under NPOL has been a gray area since forever, and it probably won't be resolved until there is an amendment of WP:NBIO this way or that way. Curbon7 (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a political office, but a bureaucratic one, so NPOL does not apply. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect both to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), albeit weakly with regard to Becraft. I don't see NPOL as being particularly relevant here: its first criterion is that the person be a politician (or judge!), and that isn't really met for an unelected bureaucratic official. There doesn't seem to be any way that Morehouse could pass the GNG: my search for sources comes up dry. Becraft presents a closer question, since there are lots of results in Newspapers.com and Proquest, but these seem to mainly consist of quotes and trivial mentions. I'm always glad to reconsider if some sort of in-depth coverage can be identified, but for now I'm thinking neither are notable. Redirecting to the office seems like a reasonable alternative to deletion, and in any event it's cheap. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect both to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) per Extraordinary Writ.4meter4 (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals in Zoo Tycoon[edit]

List of animals in Zoo Tycoon (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 - seems to be excessive detail per WP:VGSCOPE. Passengerpigeon (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Passengerpigeon (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - depending on the outcome of this AfD, we should also consider deleting List of animals in Zoo Tycoon 2 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pure WP:GAMEGUIDE content that violates WP:NOT._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pure WP:GAMEGUIDE content that violates WP:NOT. Fails WP:LISTN. There's really nothing more to say. -- ferret (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:LISTN and falls foul of WP:NOT, in particular GAMEGUIDE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just a suggestion, how about you guys just remove the fluff instead of deleting the article? I don't see why such a drastic decision has to be considered here. Just tell me what to remove and I'll remove it. --Mjmannella (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mjmannella The whole article is nothing but fluff. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of gaming trivia, if you’d like to write about such material you should probably look for a specialized wiki on, say, Fandom. Dronebogus (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Out of scope. Dronebogus (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; unsalvageable in any form. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Ajf773 (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom and per WP:GAMEGUIDE. DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator's comments and the above editors' arguments. It fails WP:LISTN and has issues with WP:GAMEGUIDE. Aoba47 (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Nicholls[edit]

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

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

After cleaning up the sources for this page, it doesn't seem like there is much supporting any of the presenting career section or the article's notability. The remaining sources are largely primary and relating to the individual's personal life. Notability is unclear. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sadly there are is not enough significant coverage for the article to be kept. Trillfendi (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources now in the article, including a source in the article when it was nominated for deletion and since added as additional references, and additional sources added since the nomination, appear to verify WP:ENTERTAINER#1 notability, significant roles in multiple notable [...] television shows. Beccaynr (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:ENT per Beccaynr's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now that additional sources have been added it meets WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Beccaynr has done the leg work and the sourcing is now fairly reasonable. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There seems to be significant coverage of the subjects television work to establish notability. Dunarc (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:ENT criteria by being in multiple places, TV host, radio host, etc. Boredathome101 (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now meets wp:gng MaskedSinger (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aybaniz Ismayilova[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG. --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 13:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 13:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 13:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ‘A journalist who has written some articles’ is not a standard that meets WP:CREATIVE. Mccapra (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article reads like a CV. The citations are padded with links to the articles. Suspect a COI. The photo was uploaded to the Commons with the subject listed as the author as if it were a self portrait. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila#Motto and song as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamantasang Mahal[edit]

Pamantasang Mahal (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:NSONG and WP:GNG. School hymns usually aren't notable. The citations are primary sources and I can't find anything discussing the hymn's notability outside the school. (E.g. relevance to the wider history of Manila) Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since the two sources in the article appear to be primary and nothing comes up for me anywhere. Maybe someone with a better knowledge of sources from the Manilla area can find something usable though. So I'd be happy to change my vote if something better then what we currently have materializes. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to University of the City of Manila#Motto and song. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing about the hymn. SBKSPP (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chalasani Venkata Rathnam[edit]

Chalasani Venkata Rathnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

He lost a legislative assembly election and was the victim of a murder. Not enough for WP:NBIO. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A non-elected politician. The only source cited doesn't even support the content of the article.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. People mad3e a movie about his life and death. Vangaveeti at IMDb Also, https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra-pradesh/2010/jun/22/it-all-began-at-the-auto-stand-125532.html Why do nominators refuse to do WP:BEFORE ? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: According to Vangaveeti (film), the movie is mostly about Vangaveeti Mohana Ranga. The movie does seem to begin with Chalasani Venkata Rathnam's murder though. The New Indian Express link that you mentioned and added to the article, seems to be a reliable source for the fact that he was murdered, and how. Is that enough to confer WP:Notability though? Not in my opinion.-MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abrar Multani[edit]

Abrar Multani (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:AUTHOR Eevee01^(talk) 09:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eevee01^(talk) 09:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eevee01^(talk) 09:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I had edited this article multiple times and tried to make it better as per Wikipedia Standards. I have removed all the content for which proper sources were not available. Now, only those content is available for which citation is there. I had also explored similar articles while creating this one. Ozairsaiyed (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NAUTHOR. Trakinwiki (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I would like to inform that I am constantly updating the page with more information and sources. Mr. Abrar Multani is one of the Authors whom I follow/read. Apart from him, the other authors which I follow are Satya Vyas, Nikhil Sachan, Divya Prakash Dubey, Pawan Karan and Nilotpal Mrinal. All of them have pages on Wikipedia, so when I searched for Mr. Multani, I couldn't find one and decided to create it following the guidelines of Wikipedia. Also, I am trying to gather his information from various news/magazine websites.
  

Ozairsaiyed (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ozairsaiyed:It's been a few days. Do you have information on any of these sources? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mikehawk10: Which sources you are refering to? I have updated the content based on references. I have sourced few more books from Google Books, which I will be adding to the article.Ozairsaiyed (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have added more of his books from Google Books.Ozairsaiyed (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:BIO, found little usable content on Google. Added refs do not contribute to notability as they are written by Multani. JavaHurricane 13:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take on You[edit]

Take on You (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 very minor board game company. No interwikis, no sources. They exist but do not appear to be notable. I prodded this with "the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with a boilerplate edit summary that did nothing to address any of the issues raised. At best, I can suggest the ATD SOFTDELETE solution of redirecting this to Tannhäuser (board game), but since the prod was challenged, we now need to go through a full AfD set of motions... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, merge (a very little bit) to Tannhäuser (board game). Hobit (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I am not seeing how this publisher is notable. Surprises me that the article had no edits between 2013-2021 too. I also do not think the suggested merger/redirect, especially one to Tannhäuser (board game) is appropriate, not least because this is about a game specifically and should not house content about its publisher. This article title is fairly ambiguous anyway that I don't feel there is any benefit in doing so. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bungle. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 19:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esk Valley Evening League[edit]

Esk Valley Evening League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

See previous discussions for Isle of Axholme Evening league and The George Marshall Cup.

The reference from Cricket Yorkshire is only a passing mention and all of the other references are from the league's own website. In searches, I can find nothing better than the league's own website and Facebook. I found nothing substantial in Google News, British Newspaper Archive or ProQuest. Repeating the searches as "Esk Valley League" still had no success and brought back results relating to football rather than cricket in most cases. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it may exist, but it's a local league for non-notable teams. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Dekete Per nom and Joseph2302's comments, a local league with non-notable teams. Fails cricket guidelines and WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I can understand that it falls short of being of great significance. I was inspired by the article I read about Fryup playing in this rather obscure league. I wanted to know more and one way was to visualize the league activity this way. I guess as it caught my imagination, I thought it might capture others in a similar way. Sadly, not living in the region, and having no involvement with the league or any of the clubs, I'm unable to enquire further as to any printed material on the league. Maybe in time, articles will come to hand. However, if you'd prefer it to go, I can understand. (p.s. I've never used the discussion board before - I hope I'm doing it right.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheekychives (talk • contribs)

Cheekychives thanks for your understanding of the situation. Since we can verify that the league exists, it's okay to mention it in a few relevant places (e.g. Glaisdale and Fryup) but a stand-alone article can be tricky to justify when the subject can't be proved to pass WP:GNG since Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of info. Thank you for the work that you have done so far on the project and please don't be discouraged by this deletion nomination, even if it does result in a deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Jean Cochrane[edit]

Lady Jean Cochrane (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 a clear instance of WP:NOTINHERITED / WP:NBIO: the artlcle is about a woman who inherited a title and gained two others by marriage - and that's all. The creator (owner) has reverted a redirect to the article of one of the husbands, which wd have been a reasonable move, on the grounds that the possession of a title must mean notability. Ingratis (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All sources cited are run of the mill, so no significant coverage - see below. Ingratis (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 1:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator - (I assume I can still do this? the only !vote in favour of redirecting was subsequently withdrawn). I've thought further about pburka's reminder that some people are just "famous for being famous" and there is (just) enough low-grade social press coverage from before the war to support that, even though she actually did nothing notable at all. It would have saved a lot of time if the article's creator had included the references straight away. Ingratis (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah go ahead, delete it.. don't need it anymore anywayHogyncymru (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - better to redirect to Herbert Hervey, 5th Marquess of Bristol (WP:ATD) Ingratis (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Question - It seems there are two articles on this person, Lady Jean Cochrane created on August 31, 2021 and Jean Alice Elaine Cochrane created today Oct. 16 just after the Lady Jean Cochrane article was nominated for deletion. Both articles were created by the same editor. Not sure what that is about, Hogyncymru did you have some insight to share with the community? Netherzone (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: the person who nominated the original page for deletion argued about her 'lady' status, so I created a new page with just her name without the 'lady' attached, so I thought it'd be easier to just start another as a fresh, there's no question why she shouldn't have a page made about her seeing as she was incredibly well known between 1900 & 1920 who even featured on the cover-page of Sketch magazine (which would be equivalent to 'Hello magazine' today, I've mentioned who she is, who her parents were who she married, who her child was (all of which were importand people), these people were in the royal circle, not just in Britain, but in Europe too, so I'm happy for the first to be deleted as long as this one remains, however, I won't be replying further to Ingratis, as he's lost his temper previously. also.. what's the point of redirecting a person's page to her husband? seems disrespectful to lower her status in that way. Hogyncymru (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - User:Hogyncymru continues to miss the point that the title of "Lady" does not make a person automatically notable. If someone else can get this through to him/her/them, that would be helpful! Ingratis (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment either Peter_Macdonald_(Conservative_politician) or Herbert Hervey, 5th Marquess of Bristol would do as a redirect target. The problem for Lady Jean is that her entire life's work appears to have been launching one ship, acting as a nurse during the war (which many others did) and supporting her two husbands. The only other information about her in this article is her parentage, which could be merged into the articles on either of her husbands. Elemimele (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele: You could say the same with the majority of celebrity pages on wiki, being famous because of their connections with other notable people, such as Michael Jackson's friend David Guest who became famous for going on reality tv show and bragging about Michael Jackson, Jean was famous, yes the page is a little bare, but she was in the limelight throughout her life, how can you ignore that?Hogyncymru (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jean was a famous figure in her time, throughout her life, she was featured within prominent publications to which, she made it to the cover of The Bystander^[1], Tatler^[2][3], Country Life^[4], & The Sketch^[5]. but sure, she wasn't 'notable'.Hogyncymru (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{re|Hogyncymru)) by all means make the case! If she's got more references indicating notability that aren't currently in the article, then by all means write what she did, what she meant, and reference it. That might convert the article into something that stands on its own, and that is no longer appropriate to merge. The references you found are potentially perfectly valid, but they're not things that everyone here is likely to find, as they long predate the internet era. If she was an influential socialite, that might qualify her as notable for an article. What she needs is something in the article independent of her husbands, something that shows she did more than get married and launch a ship. Elemimele (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hogyncymru, did you find these on an online source? That would really help with verification. It's OK to use offline references, but it will help your case if other editors can evaluate if these are significant coverage, or trivial coverage. If you can provide links that would be really helpful. Sometimes scans are available for old publications such as newspapers and magazines. On Newspapers.com I was able to find [9], the short story and photo from 1913 seems to have been picked-up as a news release by a number of newspapers in the U.S. (they all have the exact same wording). I also found this photo of her in a Spokane, Washington 1915 article [10]. I saw a couple other mentions of her, but they were single sentences about her attending other people's weddings. Netherzone (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: For the references, I used www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk so they can be tracked down online, if people have trouble accessing them, they could look on https://archive.org or even https://trove.nla.gov.au/ as for finding her name, it alters a lot, she may be addressed as;

Lady Jean Cochrane, Lady Herbert Hervey, Lady Macdonald, Lady Jean Macdonald, Jean Alice Elaine Cochrane or even Jean Baillie Hamilton. Hogyncymru (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://imgur.com/a/9QkGbzz here's a link to screenshots of her in popular magazine articles (which are all accessible through britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk Hogyncymru (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - She has had sustained coverage over a period of years in multiple independent sources, thanks to the research of Hogyncymru; it would be great to add those links to the article to establish WP:V. Subject of the article meets WP:NBASIC and WP:GNG for notability. I don't think it matters at all if she is a "Lady" or not, as there is enough evidence that she was a prominant woman and notable socialite of her time. Netherzone (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm happy to strike my concerns and treat her as a keep too, based on Hogyncymru's efforts. Elemimele (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - WP:GNG requires significant coverage in sources. This is absent here. Have the two Keep !voters actually looked at the articles? they are all run of the mill references: she attends a party, does war work, gives a wedding present. Like hundreds of other upper class young women she is photographed once or twice. Once she's invited to launch a ship. In some later ones she attends functions as an MP's wife. There is nothing there to support any claim of independent notability, even as a socialite. The claim above and in the duplicate article created out of process - what is happening about that, by the way - that she was famous, is untrue. Ingratis (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ingratis: there are literally thousands upon thousands of other articles on Wiki of people who have done nothing compared with Jean yet you choose to target her because she was rich and had connections? even if she just 'attended parties' as you put it, she was still well known across the commonwealth. (btw my question was hypothetical, I shant be replying to you again).Hogyncymru (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes any kind of discussion rather difficult then, doesn't it? please try to get beyond the playground. For the rest, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. Ingratis (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ingratis:you used aggression from the get go, letting your emotion get the better of you instead of editing accordingly without signs of (mild) personal attacks;

"For crying out loud, read the blasted links"

"exasperation at your stubborn refusal to follow the guidelines"

"If someone else can get this through to him/her/them"

and then you question other editors when you don't get your way, and this is why I don't want to continue talking with you, because you're taking it too personally. Hogyncymru (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see those wordings as aggressive (take a look at some of your edit summaries reverting my edits), just as exasperated because you keep on, with dispropprtionate reverence, about her nobility, which does not make her notable. And Pburka below may well be overvaluing the importance of a daughter of an earl.Ingratis (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"She, like many other beautiful women of the peerage has been doing splendid work for our wounded heroes" - Daily Mirror, Thursday 19 October 1916. Definition of 'Peerage'; 1. peerage - the peers of a kingdom considered as a group. baronage. aristocracy, nobility - a privileged class holding hereditary titles.Hogyncymru (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see the point of that, unless you are still trying to say that she is notable because of her peerage connections. Ingratis (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is a misunderstanding of WP:NOTINHERITED, which isn't a guideline or a policy, but rather an argument to avoid. It means that someone isn't presumed to be notable just because they're associated with a notable topic. That someone inherited a title of nobility doesn't mean they're automatically notable, but it's often a very strong indicator. People with such titles tend to be wealthy, powerful, and well-connected. Even if they're simply famous for being famous, they're still notable. Obviously, given the time, we might expect that many sources about Cochrane are off-line, but Hogyncymru appears to have access to such sources. pburka (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I have updated the article to reflect these articles to show that she was a notable person (regardless of her title), these articles are easily searchable on many newspaper archive websites, to which I used 'BritishNewspaperArchives'.Hogyncymru (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the sources are on-line, please consider including URLs in the references. You may wish to use Template:Cite news. pburka (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:NOTINHERITED means that someone cannot be deemed notable simply because of their parents or husbands, which was exactly the argument that Hogyncymru was using initially, which was why I brought this article to AfD. My point about the sources is not that there are none but that there are not enough of them of sufficient depth, online or offline, to demonstrate that this subject has her own notability despite her title, so I don't think they amount to significant coverage - and despite all the genuflection up above, she was "just" a daughter of an earl and the wife of another, by the way, and there is nothing magic about that. What Hogyncymru is accessing is mostly standard gossip column material, which does not need to be treated with excessive reverence just because it's old. It still looks as though no-one has actually read any of it - I have: it's pretty trivial. Can you all please not judge without seeing the material for yourselves? And there is no evidence so far that she was "famous", whatever Hogyncymru intends that to mean. Ingratis (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How would one define a model? because she became famous because of her modelling work, she was paid to appear on these popular magazines so she had to model in order for those images to appear, so technically even if her status is in question, modelling is a valid reason to have her page stay up.Hogyncymru (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She seems to have been a society beauty, but a paid model? you have not brought that up before. Where are you getting that from? and if you think that makes her notable, why have you not mentioned it earlier? and anyway, not all models are notable. Ingratis (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep They choose notable people to launch warships. Victuallers (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No. People who launch ships are obviously also often notable, but especially in the past they were not celebrities but dignitaries or their wives (for example, the wives of shipyard owners) and despite the way this particular AfD has gone it is still true that not all dignitaries are notable: many of them just belong to the establishment. I notice that you have added her frail claims to notability to the lede of the article (since Hogyncymru didn't): if the best you can come up with is "she launched a ship", it's not convincing. Ingratis (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So the consensus is to keep (3 against 1), is anyone able to remove the warnings on her page please?Hogyncymru (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator withdrew the nomination. Some uninvolved editor will be along to remove the discussion and notices in a while, I'm sure. There is a process to follow. pburka (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pburka: Thank you. Hogyncymru (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chulek synthesizer[edit]

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

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

Article fails WP:GNG/WP:NPRODUCT. Article was draftified earlier (Draft:Chulek synthesizer, submission declined), so this circumvents the WP:AfC-process. All that after attempts to hijack the article Chulek. Good reasons (username for one) to assume WP:COI and the history of the draft quacks like a WP:DUCK with a megaphone. Kleuske (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nom. The handful of references don't mention the Chulek specifically and are simply about synthesizers in general. No indication that this synthesizer is notable at all. This is COI advertising. Notfrompedro (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article does not satisfy product notability, which is the applicable guideline. Analysis of the sources shows that they are reliable information about synthesizers in general, not about this product.

• • • This page exists in both draft space and article space, having already been moved to draft space once by the nominator. The author or authors appear to be trying to game the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Draftify - It looks like a promising synth, but I cannot find any articles about it. Must be new and WP:TOOSOON. Boredathome101 (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. The consensus here is that reliable sources covering the situation as though the by-election is certain to occur (there's no question of if but when, and the major political parties are already announcing their intentions) relieves any concerns about WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTAL. There are valid concerns about the current title since the date of the by-election is not known, but those can be dealt with through normal editorial process. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Southend West by-election[edit]

2021 Southend West by-election (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. The article is currently completely original research with no sources talking about the by-election itself. In particular, the claim "the by-election is likely to be sixth or joint fifth" is cited to this source which does not mention anything of the sort. The prose is mostly a copy-paste of Southend West (UK Parliament constituency) with a small side-order of Murder of David Amess.

I've no objections to this being moved to draft; it's almost certain sources for the by-election will exist in due course, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or a newspaper, so we need to wait until they appear. As all political parties have suspended campaigning following the murder, I suspect nobody in government is going to rush this.

Advance notice to anyone !voting "keep" - unless you bring sources with your argument, I will be unimpressed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The synthesis of "seat is vacant from death" and "vacant seats trigger a by-election" - both of which are heavily publicized - is trivial, even for unfamiliar readers. I think we're dealing with an edge case of attributable, where no published sources exist, though any challenge to this synthesis is limited to "while obviously true, noone reliable said this yet". I think an AfD would be better, but do not object to this PROD (yet). LenaAvrelia (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Object - Okay, I do object to this PROD. LenaAvrelia (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @LenaAvrelia: This is not a PROD, it is a formal AfD. There was a PROD: it was initiated with this edit, but ended less than two hours later - specifically, at the exact moment that this edit was saved. PRODs are not discussed, so you cannot "object" to it on this page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Southend West (UK Parliament constituency) until such time as the Speaker of the House of Commons issues a Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to send a writ to the Returning Officer for the constituency. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has not been prior practice to wait for a writ before having an article, nor would that be following Wikipedia policy. We've had articles before the writ for every by-election I can remember going back >10 years. Maybe this article was started too early, but the pattern has usually been the same: an MP dies, an article gets created perhaps too early, we have a debate about it, but we end up keeping it. Bondegezou (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (edit conflict) There will certainly be a by-election and so it's reasonable to start a placeholder. The worst case would be merger to the article about the constituency pending more details. If you delete it then you're just inviting recreation and so an alternative is more sensible. What we really don't need is this AfD page. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As a minor procedural remark, a consensus to "draft" (which is a possible outcome) will involve the mainspace page being deleted per WP:G6. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the constituency article until there's actually been significant coverage in RS to make a separate article worthwhile. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is now bound to be a by-election in the next few months, even if the article does not say much at present, it's a bit pointless to delete it when it will just have to be re-created very soon. PatGallacher (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do on balance think it's a bit distasteful to set up an article on a future by-election before there was any real news coverage of it. Also, it's not clear that the election will happen in 2021. The Parliament website says "A new Writ is usually issued within three months of the vacancy. There have been a few times when seats remained vacant longer than six months." In other words, it's possible the election could be next year. So if the article is kept I suggest Move for now to something like "Future Southend West by-election" for accuracy. Blythwood (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have added this citation, which gives this article as many citations as 2021 Old Bexley and Sidcup by-election. I agree with PatGallacher: maybe this article was created too quickly, but we're going to have this article, so it seems pointless to delete it and then re-create it. I also, though, do agree with Blythwood: there's a high chance that this and the Old Bexley & Sidcup by-election will be in 2022. Bondegezou (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a second citation specifically about the by-election that's now been added. Saying the same thing are also [11] and [12]. Surely a strong keep now. Bondegezou (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I was the PROD contester; a good-faith but inexperienced editor changed Ritchie's valid rationale and replaced it with drivel, and I did not notice until just now. That said, considering the article for 2016 Batley and Spen by-election was created just a few hours after Jo Cox was similarly assassinated, I think it's fine. A page move to future election is in order however, as we don't know if this will occur in 2021 or 2022. Curbon7 (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Curbon7: a good-faith but inexperienced editor changed Ritchie's valid rationale and replaced it with drivel - when was that? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redrose64, nevermind, I think I'm going insane lol. It was never changed. Curbon7 (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here's what happened with other by-elections this Parliament: Bondegezou (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hartlepool: Hill resigned 16 March, article created same day, no PROD/AfD
  • Airdrie and Shotts: Gray announced he would be resigning on 6 Nov 2020, but formally resigned on 24 Mar 2021, article created 24 Mar 2021, no PROD/AfD
  • Chesham and Amersham: Gillan died 4 Apr, article created next day, no PROD/AfD
  • Batley and Spen: Brabin elected to Mayor on 6 May having said she would resign as an MP if so elected, article created 9 May, Brabin resigned 10 May, no PROD/AfD
  • Old Bexley and Sidcup: Brokenshire died 7 Oct, article created 8 Oct, no PROD/AfD
• Keep: It's a no-brainer that, unless a dissolution is imminent (such as in October 2019), the death or resignation of an incumbent member of the lower house leads to a by-election sooner or later. It has been standard practice for as long as we can remember to begin work on the by-election article as soon as the vacancy opens irrespective of how long it takes to actually move the writ. If this election happens after December then a simple move from 2021 to 2022 will suffice.Robin S. Taylor (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some fringe parties and independents will probably stand. JJARichardson (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the main constituency article. We are perhaps hasty in throwing up an article the moment an MP dies. "Candidates might stand" is against CRYSTAL so I can't support an article on that basis. doktorb _words^deeds 23:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have 4 citations saying there will be a by-election. That satisfies any WP:CRYSTAL concerns, I would've thought. Bondegezou (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just re-checked. We're at at least 8 RS pieces talking about a by-election, as a quick Google News search shows. I suggest that Ritchie333 withdraws this nomination given their concerns are clearly now satisfied, and we change this and the Old Bexley by-election article names to "Future XXX by-election" given no certainty over a 2021 date. Bondegezou (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      @Bondegezou: I just checked, and the only sources that talk about the election itself are this London Standard piece and this tweet. So there's two, not eight. I cannot withdraw the AfD as there is not a unanimous "keep" consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      My apologies to Ritchie333 for misunderstanding the nomination withdrawal rules.

      The article contains three citations about a by-election: Kent Live, Evening Standard and a tweet from the political correspondent of Sky News. I suggested above a quick Google News search; "southend by-election" yields: iNews, The Independent, Basildon Canvey Southend Echo, Free Radio, and Gloucestershire Live. A moment's more searching also yields an ITV report. There are also articles from sources that fail WP:RSP: the Express and Mail. GB News is not mentioned in RSP, so you all can decide for yourselves whether it's reliable or not. I gave two more sources in an earlier comment above. Ritchie333: your nomination was based on the article being completely OR (as it was at the time) and you said we need sources. We now have >8 reliable sources. Events have overtaken this AfD: let's close it as soon as possible. Bondegezou (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There are two situations where a by-election would not occur. One is a dissolution of parliament (already mentioned), the other is that only one valid nomination is in the hands of the returning officer after the deadline for nominations has passed - that candidate would then be returned unopposed, with no need for a by-election (this is rare in Parliament, but not uncommon at the local government level (example), particularly in areas where one party dominates and the others simply don't want to waste their money). Since nominations have not yet opened, we don't know how many are certain to be submitted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • If there is only one valid nomination, that person is elected unopposed, but a by-election is still considered to have occurred. We have multiple Wikipedia articles on Parliamentary by-elections with only one nomination. That would not be a reason to not have an article. Bondegezou (talk) 07:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      See 1954 Armagh by-election, 1953 North Down by-election, 1952 North Antrim by-election, 1951 Londonderry by-election, 1946 Hemsworth by-election, July 1922 North Down by-election, February 1922 North Down by-election, 1920 Middleton and Prestwich by-election, 1921 East Dorset by-election, 1922 Liverpool Exchange by-election and 1922 Banbury by-election for examples of uncontested by-elections with articles. Bondegezou (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In practice "Candidates might stand" hardly CRYSTAL, when was the last time there were no candidates nominated in a UK parliamentary election? There might be a legitimate debate about whether it is inappropriate to create a by-election article the moment an MP dies, but this should be dealt with consistently. There might also be a legitimate debate about whether, if a vacancy occurs relatively late in the year, we can assume that the by-election will take place the same year, but this is a complex issue. PatGallacher (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might have misunderstood some recent comments. However the last time, outside Northern Ireland, there was an unopposed by-election was the 1946 Hemsworth by-election, and it has an article. There probably will be at least one fringe candidate, but even if there isn't, the first candidate to be returned unopposed since 1946 would also be notable. PatGallacher (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As previously mentioned, there will almost always be a by-election following the death of an MP. I do agree that it may have been a bit insensitive to launch the article as soon as the Hon. Amess died, but now that we have the article up, I believe we should focus on fixing its issues ready for when there is a by-election. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @XxLuckyCxX: He was never appointed to the Privy Council, so not "Right Honourable". 94.13.141.49 (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, have changed it. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everyone else. This election seemed inevitable given what happened, and only an extraordinary circumstance could prevent this from happening now. Love of Corey (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there will be a by-election. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do not see why we are having this debate as I do believe once a seat is vacant, a by-election has to happen unless it is close to the time of dissolving parliament for a general election and one of those is not expected until 2024. I do agree with those that have commented stating that it may not be 2021 when the by-election is planned but surely one is going to happen - if not for the remaining time we have in 2021 then definitely in 2022. Therefore, I say keep and although there may not be much on the article currently, there will be as time goes on. RyanPLB (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Much like the above comment, the OP for this discussion should invest the time it took to open this discussion into improving the article rather than nominating it for deletion. Multiple sources are now talking about this by-election, including the notable facts that other major parties have said they are not running a candidate due to the circumstances. Deleting the article would make no sense as a by-election will be going ahead, as the government are not about to suddenly dissolve parliament. ^{[6] [7]}Guyb123321 (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- the article for the 2016 Batley and Spen by-election was created on the same day as Jo Cox's murder. The creation of this page is in line with previous by-elections caused by the murder of the incumbent. Alextheconservative (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - er... what? Multiple sources parties discussing how they won't stand (with sources). Coverage in national press. We have pages on all the other by-elections (and a page for the "Next United Kingdom general election"). Besides, if somehow there wasn't a by-election, that would be even more newsworthy. --h2g2bob (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ridiculous AFD180.241.91.74 (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify as too soon. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON states, "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." However, multiple reliable sources have been given in this discussion and in the article, so how does TOOSOON apply? Bondegezou (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep My reading of WP:TOOSOON is simply that for verifiability, there's no point having an article that has no possibility of verifiable, sourced content. There clearly is verified and substantive content even if the number and identity of the candidates is not presently known—for instance, the announcement by both the LibDems and Labour that they won't be running candidates in Southend West is an important thing noted in the article with sources (and now seems to be a de facto convention following the decisions by the Conservative Party to do likewise in Batley and Spen following the murder of Jo Cox). There will be something that happens with the seat, whether that's an unopposed nomination of the Conservative candidate, or a poll involving a Conservative candidate and some small party/independent candidates, and to delete a sourced article while we wait for which of these outcomes is to happen would seem to be a triumph of WP bureaucracy over sense. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article has sources and it's not crystalballery to realise that the death of a sitting MP means there's going to be a by-election. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it was created a couple of days WP:TOOSOON, and at that time was probably WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. But now there is information from main parties about no candidates, and therefore clear the bi-election will happen. The only questionable bit is the sentence The by-election is likely to be the fifth or sixth to the 58th Parliament, following the death of James Brokenshire, MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup, on 7 October- since that seems to be WP:SPECULATION. But that's not a reason to delete the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 19:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Crest Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

Pacific Crest Drum and Bugle Corps (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. No assertion of notability, no placement first, second or third in national competition. Although the contestation asserts that sources can be readily found for World-class drum corps, significant independent sources do not appear to exist outside the walled-garden Drum Corps International ecosystem. I am unaware of any site-wide consensus that simply competing at the DCI World level inherently confers notability, and the article notes that they have only competed in the second tier.. Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep no problems with the article, and sources such as [13] and [14] establish notability. I don't see why they need to have placed first second or third to warrant a Wikipedia article. NemesisAT (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above; as part of the whole; and because competitive success does not determine notability. Littledrummrboy (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The mention in the local newspaper is nice, but a bit short of significant or widespread coverage that would establish notability for a global encyclopedia rather than simple existence, and the second link is a photo gallery, useless for GNG. And placement in national competition is explicitly a component of notability for musical acts per WP:BAND. Acroterion (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bgsu98 (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Local coverage on its own is not sufficient for a GNG pass, and as Acroterion points out, the photo gallery does not constitute SIGCOV. The keep vote above me is unconvincing, lacking any rationale whatsoever. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although agree there are grounds either way. Calling it a "walled garden" is a bit pejorative. Admittedly, a fairly niche community follows these, but this group has been around enough that it has notability in sources that might not be on-line. W Nowicki (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as there is enough sourcing.Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adirondack Trust Company[edit]

Adirondack Trust Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of notability, no sourcing in article, or found with a bit of a search, to establish notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - No !vote yet. Just noting that newspapers.com has an awful lot of hits. Haven't had time to properly go through it, but it has all the features of an important local company. The key will be finding something beyond local coverage. Bits and pieces in e.g. NYT, but nothing great yet... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I reject this request to delete this page. It seems that the requester for deletion has ulterior motives, having first deleted a well cited section before declaring the entire page the subject of deletion. What arrogance. Unfortunately, that’s not how Wikipedia works. Rather than hiding behind tomfoolery, why not add citations for the puffery otherwise written on the page?Hudsonmohawk (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, I've made over ten thousand edits in anticipation of this moment. I'm a super deep cover operative. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Hudsonmohawk, I think your comment was most inappropriate. In any case User:ScottishFinnishRadish is a respected editor and he has made invaluable contributions to the Wikipedia project. Gentleman wiki (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I appreciate that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but your conceitedness aside, deleting sections about a entity’s practices that are well cited is not an example of good editing. Please stop doing that. You didn’t even try and talk about it. Rather, you wrote a condescending message about the sandbox, called me a vandal, and marked the page for deletion. I think that is most inappropriate. Thanks. Hudsonmohawk (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I marked the page for deletion because there is it doesn't appear to be notable. I do apologize for hitting the wrong button in RedWarn, I should have used the non-constructive edit revert. On Wikipedia we don't insert large sections based entirely on primary sources. If this were notable and WP:DUE there would be coverage in secondary sources, which is what is required. This also goes to the reason I nominated the article for deletion, no coverage in secondary sources, other than WP:ROUTINE coverage in local sources about a local business. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hudsonmohawk: There is a key rule to how Wikipedia works: focus on content, not contributors. The problem here was the material you added, which was a clear violation of our neutral point of view policy. That doesn't mean it's "biased" or "vandalism" or whatnot -- it just gives undue weight to an aspect of the subject. Wikipedia does not include material just because it exists and someone on Wikipedia says it's important. It needs to be recognized as important by an independent reliable source first (newspapers, magazines, journals, books, high-quality websites, etc. with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). SFR should not have labeled your addition "vandalism" because it clearly was not, but they have admitted as much above. What is not appropriate is to respond by focusing on SFR, talking about ulterior motives, etc. Assume good faith and rely on building consensus rather than repeatedly inserting your content or you'll wind up blocked from editing (not a threat -- just the reality of how Wikipedia works). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rhododendrites: While some of your comments are certainly valid, I will point out that the act of overzealously marking a page for deletion and for vandalism when another individual user is making edits, citations, and updates is just as much a focus on people and not content. It seems on first look that the consensus you wish to build is one where I am wrong for having called out SFR's ulterior motives and he is right for being a big contributor to Wikipedia. The reality is SFR is the only one here who has gone outside the norm for some reason unknown. All I have done is point that out that digression, while continuing to add the recognized and important secondary sources as had been planned from the beginning, in accordance with the neutral point of view policy. Finally, this entire back and forth is off topic, since we are trying to figure out if the page should be deleted, as a result of SFR's overzealous and frivolous report. I continue to reject SFR's assertion and suggest that the back and forth about my content and my not editing fast enough for a single other user's liking be moved to the article's main talk page. Thanks for not threatening me! Hudsonmohawk (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you be so kind as to chill with the personal attacks and bad faith assumptions? I have an over 80 percent accuracy rate at AfD [15], and as I've said a number of times using the vandalism revert rather than another was a mistake. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you be so kind as to revert your report for this page to be deleted or close out the thread? I deny having made any personal attacks or bad faith assumptions and request you stay on topic or find a different forum for your accusations. Hudsonmohawk (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• the act of overzealously marking a page for deletion and for vandalism when another individual user is making edits, citations, and updates is just as much a focus on people and not content - the "vandalism" part aside (addressed above), what is the difference between "overzealously marking a page for deletion" and just marking a page for deletion? But no, there's not a problem with the nomination. Deletion won't be based on the state of the article but the notability of the subject, so what matters is showing significant coverage in reliable sources here rather than what's in the article. If it's notable, a deletion discussion shouldn't amount to much. Neither these accusations nor SFR's stats really help to push this thread forward, so my two cents is to move on from talking about the legitimacy of this nomination and focus on showing notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you asked, the difference between what I describe to be overzealous marking versus marking in due course, is that I was actively working on the issues that concerned both you and SFR: Specifically, the documentation of secondary sources to accord with the neutral point of view policy was ongoing at the time of the deletion request and SFR knew this. What makes the action overzealous is the decision to mark a page for deletion that was actively being updated at the time of the indication. It was not a due course report. Rather, it was an action in reaction to a dispute as part of war plan that SFR believes he should be able to execute with impunity, because of his high rate of activity on Wikipedia. While SFR's report at the time may not have been factually incorrect, it was overzealous because he knew I was simultaneously updating the document and decided to make the report anyway. The point of bringing up the vandalism again is that SFR admits to it, which also substantiates that the deletion report was presumptuous at best and paints the deletion request in a false light. Finally, if the issue was secondary sources, that issue has been long resolved as may be ascertained by a quick glance at the citations section of the page. Hudsonmohawk (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I added some newspaper coverage. There's a lot more available. Do not delete. Peter Flass (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Is any of the newspaper coverage not WP:ROUTINE local coverage? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @ScottishFinnishRadish:Money Magazine rating it the safest bank in NY. It's a local bank, so most of the coverage would be local. Ithaca is out of area. Peter Flass (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:HEY. Passes GNG and WP:NORG based on the sources added to the article, and a few more I located through my university library. See below.4meter4 (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Gerson, Vicki (2001-06-01). "Upstate N.Y. Bank Expands Switching Capacity". Bank systems + technology. 38 (6): 54.
• Business Editors & High-Tech Staff Writers (2001-03-06). "Adirondack Trust Company Chooses S2 Systems' OpeN/2 for ATM Network Expansion". Business Wire: 1. ((cite journal)): |author= has generic name (help)
• "Adirondack Trust Company, Inst Holders, 1Q 2020 (ADKT)". Dow Jones Institutional News. 2020-04-19.
• "Mobile Source Capture from Fiserv Gains Momentum among Banks and Credit Unions; Adirondack Trust Company Now Live". Investment Weekly News: 587. 2011-12-31.
• MICHAEL QUINT (1995-10-25). "Governments Bypassing Banks to Pool Money in Fund". The New York Times.
• RICHARD D. LYONS (1982-11-08). "IN SARATOGA SPRINGS, A MORTGAGE-RECALL FIGHT". The New York Times.
• Knudson, Paul T (November 2012). "Preservationists as Qualitative Growth Actors: A Case Study of Saratoga Springs, New York". Humanity & society. 36 (4): 326–353. (peer reviewed)
• Knudson, Paul T (2012-04-01). "Regional Industrial Recruitment in Upstate New York". State & local government review. 44 (1): 21–32. (peer reviewed)

• Question Hi 4meter4, this is the second AfD where you've posted these type of links. Did you get access to the full articles and read them? I ask mainly because of the articles I've managed to access, nothing meets WP:NCORP. For example, the reference Preservationists as Qualitative Growth Actors: A Case Study of Saratoga Springs, New York] doesn't even mention the topic company. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep It appears that there is substantial coverage in local news for this firm. I imagine especially in the archives of smaller/local oriented papers we'd find something more. It seems notable per WP:ORG, and can hardly be described as a fluff or propaganda piece, seeing how prominently a criticism section is placed. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 20:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC) (edit: Basically per user:4meter4's rationale as well.) BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 20:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Guys in all honesty I would keep this one, It’s no different than capital one. What employee count makes qualify for inclusion? --Rrmmll22 (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not about employee count, it's about coverage and notability. Take a gander at HighKing's explanations, they do a great job at explaining the issues with the sourcing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge to Saratoga Springs, New York#Economyadd in option to Merge WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I tried to ping 4meter4 to ask about the references they've provided because none of the ones I've managed to access meet NCORP either. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company (or in one case above, not even mentioned). All of the references I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND or even anything that meets CORPDEPTH. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think I understand this comment. There are plenty of major sources of independent content in this page, including from the Times Union (Est. 1856), The Daily Gazette (Est. 1894), and the Saratogian (Est. 1855). There are also references to the National Register for Historic Places and pointers to associated Wikipedia pages. Hudsonmohawk (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Hudsonmohawk, I previously pointed to two relevent sections (WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND) but I didn't include all the sections, for example WP:ILLCON which states that sources that discuss a company's (alleged) illegal conduct cannot be used to establish an organization's notability. *Each* reference must meet *all* of the criteria. You pointed to a number of references.

• "Times Union" is the first and I assume you're referring to this reference. Looking at the content of the article, it is reporting on a consent order using this announcement from the Department of Financial Services which is the court-issued consent order. Fails WP:ILLCON.
• You next mention "The Daily Gazette" which I assume refers to this reference. Discussing the same settlement. Fails WP:ILLCON for the same reasons as above.
• You next mention the "Saratogian" and I assume you are referring to this article. First off, the Saratogian is a small local newspaper, with an estimated circulation < 1,000. Even leaving that aside, the article provides no in-depth information on the company and provides most of the information about the time capsule from the journalist having attented an event to unveil a 100 year old time capsule. This is not notable coverage, it is a local-interest piece. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

If you're struggling to understand how NCORP is applied you'd like me to provide the detailed reasoning for any other reference, put the link below. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It seems to me that when there’s a difference of opinion Wikipedia should always err on the side of “keep”. It costs nothing to retain an article. As long as there are some references, and it’s not just about a company somebody runs out of his basement (for example), there’s no upside to deleting an article. Peter Flass (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If there is no consensus AfD defaults to keep, so that's basically how it works. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've also now looked at the references posted by 4meter4 and the all, without exception, fails the criteria for establishing notability according to NCORP. Most references are based entirely on PR and company announcements, or a commentary on a legal case. I had already pointed out that the first reference listed by 4meter4 by Knudson didn't even mention the topic company. The second reference "Regional Industrial Recruitment in Upstate New York" mentions the topic company in the context of a single sentence where it points out that a former town supervisor named David Meager is also the owner of "the Adirondack Trust Company, the largest financial firm in the county". That's it. Fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Saratoga Springs, New York#Economy, for which this subject should be of at least passing interest, even though it is curiously n ow completely absent. BD2412 T 18:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Saratoga County, New York#Economy - I improved the article as much as I could, and was almost a weak keep, but there's still not enough media coverage to demonstrate notability. The best source is [[16]], but it's just a leadership transition announcement and a mention of the bank's own financial reports for info on its assets. If you take away the minor trivia about the charity sponsorship item and the time capsule reopening, the historic headquarters (which should really instead go in a building article), the lending discrimination and the somewhat routine PPP dispute with the hotel owner, there's not really much left. I took the liberty to start a merge to Saratoga County, New York#Economy with the most salient details, so you can see what it looks like. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm also perfectly fine with a merge. It's a good way to keep the pertinent information accessable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bank is over a hundred years old and manages over a billion dollars. The article links to The Post-Star (Glens Falls, New York) 28 Sep 1989, Thu Page 11 which covers them and states "Trust of Saratoga Springs was credited with the best equity-to-asset ratio in the state." That and other coverage found convinces me the bank is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 07:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two references to articles from The Post-Star. The one you're referring to is from 28th September 1989. The full quote and context is that "Money Magazine" listed the "Top 100 banks in the USA" based on an equity-to-asset ratio and based on a list compilied by Veribanc of 13,500 banks across the USA. So it's not an award of any kind and there's nothing to suggest that inclusion in this top 100 list suggests that the topic company is notable in any way. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article is long enough to count as significant coverage of it in a reliable source. It starts off with: Adirondack Trust in Saratoga Springs is the safest bank in New York, according to the October issue of Money Magazine. This proves it is a notable bank. Dream Focus 16:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Well, our NCORP guidelines don't have a "That article is long enough to count as significant"' exception, it looks to the content/quality rather than length. I don't even know why you've fixed on that particular reference since it isn't even the original source as it refers to an article in a different publication that, to date and AFAIK, nobody has been able to find. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bank has received substantial coverage, and article is far from promotional. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dream Focus. I don't see how the article is exactly promotional either. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I must admit that my first reaction was "delete." What, a private bank in a small town? How can that possibly be notable? And almost all of the references are local; I normally expect regional coverage if not national. But after taking a closer look at the article, noting that the bank is more than 100 years old, has 13 branches, has over a billion dollars in assets and deposits, and received at least a mention in Money magazine with followup reporting in regional papers, I am going to err on the side of Keep. With that said, I would not object to a merge as suggested above. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dream Focus and MelanieN: A billion dollars in combined assets and deposits is really not all that much for a bank. It sounds like a lot, but they may well be counting the value of every piece of property for which they have issued a mortgage. Million-dollar homes are fairly common, so a bank with a thousand home mortgages in that range can claim a billion dollars in assets just from that. BD2412 T 02:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to quibble, but the article actually claims "almost $1.5 billion in assets and over $1.3 billion in deposits". So closer to $3 billion combined. According to them, of course. Anyhow that wasn't my only criterion. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fatikchhari Coronation Model High School[edit]

Fatikchhari Coronation Model High School (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 school. DOESN’T meet with WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL guideline.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  ^💬 07:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  ^💬 07:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As the vast majority of secondary schools, this one is not notable.--Bduke (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Searching in Bengali found a lengthy independent piece on alleged corruption at the school before it was nationalised.[17] Combined with the article's brief independent references that verify specific facts, that's enough to satisfy WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing recommendation to redirect to Fatikchhari Upazila#Education after further discussion with Adamant1. There's some evidence that decent offline sources exist, but legible copies can't be obtained within the duration of this discussion. Redirecting to the lowest level locality is a common practice for schools, and a good alternative to deletion because it takes readers to the sourced information available (dates of founding and nationalization, former names). --Worldbruce (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete The reference provided by Worldbruce seems to be a personal blog post from a news aggregator site. So I'm not sure if it's a reputable source. Even if it is, news articles about allegations that haven't been proven aren't exactly a strong bases for Wikipedia articles. Especially since the allegations were never followed up on. So there's nothing about it except "someone said something bad happened." Which isn't notable and including it would likely go against some guideline. In the meantime, Wikipedia isn't a news source. Outside of that everything else is to brief to qualify it for notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Describing Sokaler Somoy as a news aggregator is probably accurate. I wouldn't call the article a personal blog post, but on reflection admit that it is weak. It says, however, that it is following up reports in the Dainik Purkobone and Dainik Azadi (reputable mainstream Bengali-language newspapers), and provides poor quality snapshots of photocopies from them. They're so blurry that I can only make out "ফটিকছড়ি করোনেশন" [Fatikchhari Coronation] at the top of the first headline and "ফটিকছড়ি করোনেশন ছলে / দুর্নীতির অডিযেগ" [Fatikchhari Coronation Scam / Allegations of Corruption] as the start of the second, dated 10 Bhadrô 1422 [BS, or 25 August 2015 AD]. The articles are not available online, but that's not surprising considering how poor the online archives of most Bangladeshi Bengali papers are. For me, there's sufficient evidence that offline sources exist that this 100-year old rural Bengali-language school shouldn't have been nominated without first searching offline archives. Performing such a search now that the clock is ticking is impractical for discussion participants. How would you feel about redirecting to Fatikchhari Upazila as an alternative to deletion? Sourced information about dates and the school's various names could be preserved in its education section of the locality article. If good offline sources are found later, the redirect could be expanded again. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't necessarily mean "blog post" in the a diminutive way, just that the person who owns the site wrote the article based on other sources. It's to bad the references they were basing the article on are offline. You'd think if the charges went anywhere that there would be online sources discussing it though. That said, I'd be perfectly fine with a redirect as an alternative to deletion until proper sourcing can be found. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]