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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shishir Kumar Shandilya[edit]

Shishir Kumar Shandilya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I don't see Shandilya passing any of the NPROF criteria (no google profile, but the h-index is below 10, the most cited paper has 57 citations), note that while IEEE fellows are notable IEEE senior members (requirements here (10 years experience, three references from other senior members or above)) are very much not. I don't see a GNG pass either. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link to google scholar profile added to article, does not come close to PROF C1.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Citation record not yet strong enough for WP:PROF#C1, and the minor awards and lower-level honorary membership levels listed in the article also aren't good enough for #C2 or #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with nomination. FiddleheadLady (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David Eppstein ,fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with nomination - hasn't got google profile - has written a book and about 40 articles?, none of which are cited very much. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per above. --hroest 21:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David Eppstein and nom.4meter4 (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Masterhatch (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Doreck[edit]

Chad Doreck (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:NACTOR; he’s only had some significant roles in a The Brady Bunch TV movie from almost 20 years ago, voice acting roles, and a realty show for a role in a Broadway revival of Grease but beyond that nothing much that makes him notable. Pahiy (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:NACTOR. Character actor with numerous roles in notable series, including a 38-episode stint on My Life as a Teenage Robot. KidAd • SPEAK 02:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per WP:NACTOR Crit #1. Has held significant roles in multiple notable films and TV shows. Also, was a voice actor in notable video games like Grand Theft Auto V. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Dr.Swag Lord and KidAd, passes WP:NACTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiro725 (talk • contribs)
• Keep lots of roles in many shows, plus some leads (like Greg in the Brady Bunch movie) so passes WP:NACTOR Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Marginally passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. There a quite a lot of significant RS for his performances in My Life as a Teenage Robot, The Brady Bunch TV movie, and the Grease reality show. Just enough to meet the multiple roles criteria.4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Functions Originator[edit]

Universal Functions Originator (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 slightly adapted paper on a novel concept (now correctly licensed after a trip to the copyvio corner, as far as I can tell). The issue is that this is pure primary material based on a single source with no further uptake - in other words, original research. I don't understand zip about the topic, but I can vet the given sources, and they consist of a) the original paper, b) a Stackoverflow thread, and c) two papers and one software documentation about related material that do not mention the concept. Charitably WP:TOOSOON, definitely not sufficiently covered to have an article on WP. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but happy for a closer to ignore my !vote if something newer emerges or someone volunteers to transwiki to stand up in WikiBooks or WikiUniversity but its unclear to me if ir would be accepted there. I have not precised checked the nom's analysis of the references but from [this search] on Google Scholar one of the authors of "2019 IEEE Canadian Conference of Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE), 2019, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/CCECE.2019.8861880." appears in the 6 related items. Some indicators for COI/SPA/PROMO concerns and has not gone via AfC. Thankyou. 11:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. This article incorporates text available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. The text and its release have been received by the Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team. The article is significantly extended and edited by different volunteers. Also, all the typo-errors have been corrected, and the article is updated with enough references. Maximal Point (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you have added a further 10 sources on related material that do not mention the subject. Do you understand the nature of the problem - that no one except Al-Roomi & Al-Hawari are talking about the "Universal Functions Originator"? (And no, it was not expanded by anyone but yourself - all other editors did was cutting it down and fixing the peripherals.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We write about ideas after they've caught on, not before. XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per XOR, we don't write about stuff that's got no wider relevance than a single paper. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The idea here is, I think, interesting. It's very peripherally linked to some work I do, though I certainly wouldn't say that I'm an expert in this area. Unfortunately, though, the entire article has the feel of research work in progress, rather than anything fully formed. There aren't the independent references I would expect of something that has reached professional standard and broad acceptibility. If this takes off we can always re-create the article later, but for now it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. RomanSpa (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's also worth noting that as it stands the approach that is being advocated is far less general than it at first appears, and there are some oddities in the presentation given in the article. I'm thinking this looks more like master's level work than doctoral. RomanSpa (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per RomanSpa and nom.4meter4 (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magali Elise Roques[edit]

Magali Elise Roques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I believe the reasons for the previous deletion of the page remain unchanged and entirely valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:cb04:a20:7500:9ddd:3cbb:2bc4:5382 (talk) 11:28, September 18, 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 23:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per recent discussion, looks way WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF. I don't think the coverage of the plagiarism issues rises to GNG. Comment that WP:ABOUTME may apply here: if kept, the coverage of the plagiarism issue would need to be looked at by neutral editors. The CNRS report is not the exoneration that the article currently implies, and other coverage at Retraction Watch [1] etc is still more negative. (Looking at the history, the coverage was significantly more negative at AfC acceptance, possibly too much so, before whitewashing by an SPA.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:G4 may apply depending on how close this is to the last one (it was recreated three months after deletion). Does not pass WP:NPROF. What we do have is a possible plagiarism scandal that was mainly covered in specialist sources (e.g. [2], CNRS report which rejected plagiarism but did find faults in citations and limited "borrowings", but "not guilty of academic fraud in the sense specified above"). What we end up with is a "I did not beat my spouse" article, in that we have a scandal (possibly mostly refuted) that is the main thrust of the article, which only draws attention to the possibly refuted impropriety. WP:SIGCOV is doubtful and WP:BIO1E applies as this is all around this limited acadmic scandal.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Nothing but an obscure academic scandal. The last paragraph looks like special pleading. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. fails WP:NPROF and the scandal falls under WP:BIO1E. --hroest 21:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only known for the one thing, not for an influential academic career. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I downloaded the CNRS report yesterday from the site given by Eostrix. The names of the report's authors were not given. I found the report to be so lame and feeble that I think that it is unlikely to convince anybody outside CNRS. There was little sign of the intellectual rigor that is sometimes associated with French scholarship in the humanities. The report has not persuaded any of the journals to retract their retractions. I still support deletion of this BLP for the reasons given, but think that further examination of the circumstances of the scandal may be warranted. This may be a case where an untransparent and inadequate institutional response has made a scandal worse. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  @Xxanthippe: I do not disagree with your assessment on the CNRS report. However further examination should be done by reliable sources outside of Wikipedia, not by Wikipedia itself. With the limited source material and BIO1E issues there is little scope for an article on Wikipedia at this time.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I note this, though. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete and salt. Fails WP:NPROF and WP:SIGCOV. The scandal falls under WP:BIO1E.4meter4 (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Opinion is unanimous. It is time that this BLP was put out of its misery and its unfortunate subject left to get on with her life. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KJOS[edit]

KJOS (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:NMEDIA. Just two sentences long; no infobox. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This should have been prodded, but I suspect the creator would have deprodded it. No clear redirect target as it's unclear who operated it. Clear GNG failure. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to have been WP:MADEUP in 2015; CW 100+ stations never had the false callsigns the WB 100+ group did. Nate • (chatter) 01:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'll first note that, to at least some degree, the "KJOS" false call sign did carry over into the CW era, as it is listed on the network's website as such circa 2010, so there is more nominal legitimacy here than there really ought to be. (In general, the WB 100+ "call signs" seemed to persist longer in markets where The CW Plus was still carried solely as a "standard" cable channel — which in the CW era also likely meant the market's cable companies were selling the local ads as they would for cable-only networks — though they were undoubtedly relegated to program guides, Nielsen ratings, and other spots where just calling it "CW+" wouldn't be as useful. I don't think purely-cable-only CW Plus channels had local station partnerships the way The WB 100+ did, as those partnerships had morphed into digital subchannel affiliations instead.) But of course that in and of itself does not an article make these days, since the actual programming is the same as the national CW Plus feed, and sources that would cover this as a "television station" are going to be completely nonexistent. Worth noting that KJOS-TV was redirected to The CW Plus in 2011, replacing an earlier attempt at giving this "station" an article (that was mostly about what it, and The CW Plus, aired at the time), but I'm not sure if that should translate into an identical redirect here too — especially since there would still be the possibility of further recreation attempts. ("KJOS" is mentioned in section of the KAIT article about the CW subchannel it launched to replace the cable-only carriage, but that connection might be too tenuous for a redirect in that direction.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the elaboration on its history; I've conditioned myself to thinking the WB100+ stations all had "WB" somewhere in their false signs, so it was surprising to see one without it. I do agree that KAIT would be too tenuous for a redirect. Nate • (chatter) 00:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.4meter4 (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Mukuka[edit]

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

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

Unknown person. None of the sources address their work. There is no mention of the actor, only of the other ones. Additionally, they only come up in the ensemble cast list, which makes me think that they were added to article to avoid deletion since there would not be further investigation. Lastly, the views for the pages are extremely low. 2:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 22:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only routine mentions of her, nothing beyond linkedin or her acting agency. Nothing notable found Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:TOOSOON - while I think a case could be made that she has appeared in multiple notable stage performances, per WP:NACTOR, those roles are not significant; to the extent that she has had significant roles, these do not appear to be in notable productions with the notability supported by independent and reliable sources per the guidelines. WP:BASIC notability also does not appear sufficiently supported at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails to satisfy any one criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER.Chirota (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Larios[edit]

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

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

Has been in CAT:NN for over 8 years and unsourced since 2008. Had I seen this in the new articles feed, I'd have slapped a WP:G3 (blatant hoax) tag on it. Given that it's stayed here for so long, I feel AfD is the only appropriate way forward. Some fake sources were added in this edit including references to 'Cellphonereviewsnow.com' and 'Tourist-plaza.eu' and other inappropriate sites. Unsurprisingly, none of these seem to have ever existed. The article has had a number of WP:SPA edits and the accounts may well be socks of each other.

The article makes an outrageous claim to notability; he apparently scored 75 goals in only 49 professional league appearances! Despite this, there are zero relevant hits in DDG, ProQuest, Google Images, Google Books or Google News. Surely someone with a career like this would receive some coverage? And surely he would have had an international call up for Honduras, right? Plenty of other Platense players and others in the Honduran league did during the same time period.

Unless someone can bring forth some clear evidence that Larios not only existed but also that he meets our inclusion guidelines as well (WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG) then I think deletion is the only option here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Honduras-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Concur with Spider. House1090 (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a hoax. No sources of any kind found. Mccapra (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looks like a hoax. Unless anyone can provide sources to the contrary. Also, no coverage = doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails WP:V as there are absolutely no online sources to verify the claim to notability (or existence of such a person). Jogurney (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and recommend that closing admin send to WP:HOAXLIST wizzito | say hello! 23:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to closing admin - given that this article has existed for just under 13 years with no evidence that he even ever existed, definitely warrants listing at WP:HOAXLIST as per above. From what I can tell, it's the longest lasting hoax on Wikipedia relating to football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Good grief. Perhaps there should be more focus on articles like this, rather than real Iraqi Premier League players. Nfitz (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a hoax.4meter4 (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest living Catholic bishops and cardinals[edit]

List of oldest living Catholic bishops and cardinals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The last deletion discussion was more than a decade ago, and opinions about longevity lists have shifted quite a bit in that time, so perhaps we'll find a consensus this time. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living former members of the United States Cabinet and other recently deleted lists, this is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization of longevity, career, and liveness. Unlike that page, most of these people haven't retired, but that's unsurprising since it's a lifetime appointment. There's no attempt to explain why longevity among bishops and cardinals is notable, nor why those alive today are of particular interest.

The list also fails WP:V as it's unclear how one might validate that that there are no older bishops amongst those currently living. Would an editor need to collate the ages of nearly 6,000 bishops and cardinals?

It's not even clear that the members of this list are individually notable, as WP:NCATHOLIC (an essay) appears to only grant presumed notability to certain high-ranking bishops.

Finally, the list includes a smidgen of WP:OR where the editors decide to omit Phocas Nikwigize because they think he's probably dead. (This could be corrected through editing; the other problems are fundamental.)

In summary, this page of trivia fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN, WP:N,WP:LISTPURP and WP:V. pburka (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Bishop is a lifetime appointment with no particular incentive to retire, so it's not surpring a lot of the 5000+ bishops are in their 90s. Since there's no particular difference between a bishop who has lived to 88 or 98 within the Church's leadership, I'm not sure what the purpose, notability, or usefulness of this list is supposed to be. We have lists like List of Catholic bishops in the United States, which I feel like could include when the bishops were appointed, but age just isn't a defining factor. List of youngest living Catholic bishops should be deleted as well. Bishops can be appointed as young as 35, so it's not that unique, defining, or notable that 100 of those appointed in the last decade happen to be under 50. Reywas92^Talk 01:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, most of these bishops have retired from the active service of being in charge of a diocese, as they are required to submit their resignations at age 75 (although the Pope can allow a bishop to remain in office beyond that age). They still retain the title and status of being a bishop notwithstanding. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment per WP:LSC list elements could be all notable, all non-notable, or some combination. And yes, Roman Catholic bishops are notable by "virtue" of being bishops: there's no such thing as a modern Catholic bishop who doesn't have multiple RS coverage somewhere, even if that coverage is in another language and offline. Having said all of that, no, I don't think lists of youngest/oldest anything are particularly encyclopedic in that they are dynamic. If there was a list of centenarian bishops, regardless of whether they were living or dead, that might be an encyclopedic topic, but an ever-changing "high score" list is simply not within our scope. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article simply pass WP:GNG and is in a row with another similar kind of articles, as List of oldest living Academy Award winners and nominees and List of oldest living Major League Baseball players, or List of living former members of the United States House of Representatives (B), etc. I don't know well this WP, but it seems, that these kind of lists are encyclopedic, even if not too "scientific"--Noel baran (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, specifically WP:NLIST. There are a couple of unofficial lists unsanctioned by the Catholic Church and of indeterminate reliability, but that's about it.[3][4] Clarityfiend (talk) 08:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- This is an article of a kind that is undesirable, as it will need continuous maintenance: some one is going to need to monitor obituary columns daily to eliminate those who die. If this is not done, the article will soon become unreliable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you are right, and you can check (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals&action=history), that this page is permanently monitored and updated by different users (every month are dying 10-20 bishops, but these, who included in this list |more, then 92 years old| - around 1 person in 2 months)--Noel baran (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Consensus at AFD recently has overwhelmingly supported not utilizing lists of "oldest living..."; largely because such lists are constantly changing as people age and die and maintaining accuracy and verifiability is a difficult and on-going task. Many editors consider such lists not encyclopedic (because they are inherently unstable) and in contradiction to policy at WP:LISTN. I share that view which I consider now to be the standard modus operandi/precedent at AFD within the application of NLIST in these type of list discussions.4meter4 (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the reasoning of 4meter4. Mccapra (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mundane, arbitrary information— who cares that some lifetime appointees are currently alive and elderly? Of course they would be. Dronebogus (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nom. Fails WP:NLIST, as the article is just a random cross-section of age and church-post. It also fails WP:V due to being WP:OR. How is anyone to know if there are older bishops out there or if some of these men have died in obscurity? Not even the Catholic Church (at least publicly) has such a list as this. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1: withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jürgen Czarske[edit]

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

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

Potentially failing WP:NPROF. Only 1 paper above 100 citations but plenty of other stuff which may swing it. Deleted in 2013 for similar reasons. scope_creep^Talk 20:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The citation record still does not look particularly impressive, but since the 2013 nomination (in which my opinion was to delete) he has been elected as a fellow of several major societies such as OSA and SPIE in which this is enough of an honor, I think, to pass WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Good enough for me. Nomination Withdrawn

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. – Joe (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Lonsdale[edit]

Derrick Lonsdale (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 per discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard. Seems to be promotional .

Although (as said on the noticeboard and previous deletion discussions) some of his research has been widely cited, the article as it is, is too promotional and would need a serious overhaul - I think a deletion and starting from scratch would be better if someone else wants to do this.

These issues have seemingly been around since 2006, so I think it's clear that nobody is actually going to fix them now. -- Bangalamania (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bangalamania (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bangalamania (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Article has been up for deletion in the past for starters. A quick search on Google confirms notability in his respective fields. Google Book results, for example, number in the dozens. Article is well sourced, just requires a cleanup. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Very weird article. The problem seems to be that the current article is largely an attempt to promote information that wouldn't pass WP:MEDRS, and I was unable to find good sources from a quick Google to meet WP:BIO. However, I do think he meets WP:NACADEMICS, probably both #1 and #7, for his work on thiamine. I'm not sure the article is bad enough to warrant WP:TNT, but after stripping out the cruft I'm really not sure what remains; the person seems famous for promoting alternative/quack medicines, but we don't _seem_ to have any reliable sources supporting that perspective. Maybe older sources like this (from the '80s!) can help. Suriname0 (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes criteria 1 and 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. An un-orthodox physician to be sure, but one with significant coverage if one combs through google books. The article has issues, but not so bad that a WP:TNT is needed. WP:AFD is not cleanup.4meter4 (talk) 18:05, 26 September 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) 21:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grants India[edit]

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

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

Unsourced article created by the company founder. A BEFORE search turns up zero significant coverage in reliable sources for this startup. M4DU7 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Given the title, very hard to search for sources, so this probably needs expert (non-English) attention to identify any sources that would even plausibly meet the notability criteria. Suriname0 (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as per nom, doing a BEFORE search turns up nothing for this organisation. Fails GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete anyone can buy a web site and declare themselves "multi-national". Get some independent sources first. W Nowicki (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poedit[edit]

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

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish that it has the coverage or significance to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its still undergoing active with a fairly big community, so its not a dead project. I'll take a notability tag off it. scope_creep^Talk 15:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Delete - Looks like non-notable software; doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE. The best I could find was only a passing mention, and even then the source is pretty questionable.^[1] Also mentioned in this questionable (reviewed?) conference paper.^[2] Suriname0 (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also mentioned briefly in this book, but I couldn't view the actual page.^[3]

Okay, this actually looks close to me. I was able to find a short description in a peer reviewed conference paper here.^[4] One additional source of that quality would lead me to vote keep. Suriname0 (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another passing mention in an a tech encyclopedia entry.^[5] And a paragraph in a book, which characterizes it as "one of the most popular programs available" to edit PO files.^[6] Based on this coverage, I'm shifting my vote to Keep, although none of this coverage is particularly impressive. Suriname0 (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this nomination was started less than 120 seconds after a previous edit by the nominator. I'm not aware of a computer with the processing power to facilitate relevant WP:BEFORE checks in that time, but I'm happy to be educated. The nominator claims not to have been able to establish that the topic was the subject of significant coverage. It's hard to establish something if you don't try. The sources above are more than enough. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just looking through google books, I think there is enough RS to pass WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, enough book references for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grunwald Poznań (handball)[edit]

Grunwald Poznań (handball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nightenbelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) started this AfD but did not create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grunwald Poznań (handball). I'm not sure why the nominator wants to have this article deleted. The corresponding Polish article is pl:Grunwald Poznań (piłka ręczna) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - To be fair to Nightenbelle, they used Page Curation for the nomination, which I've found to be buggy as hell for AfDs. Pinging here and left a talk page note. --Finngall ^talk 20:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry- yes- I used page curation and didn't go back and re-check that the discussion page was created- I'll be a bit more careful moving forward. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep why even nominate this? Abcmaxx (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, national champions. Geschichte (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, national champions. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Winner of national championship. Passes WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly notableJackattack1597 (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Murphy (branding consultant)[edit]

John Murphy (branding consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article currently fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary sources. Iskandar 323 (talk) Iskandar 323 (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iskandar 323 (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The author has since retrieved live versions of some of the broken links that had resulted in a lack of citation. These may or may not be considered enough to establish WP:BASIC and WP:GNG and the general merit of the article likely still needs discussing. Iskandar 323 (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Weighing the restoration of this article's links and the supporting bibliography, I retract my proposed deletion. Iskandar 323 (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – oppose retraction - This is a PROMO article that relies mostly on interviews (which are not independent sources) and a piece by The Marketing Society, an organization that looks like a trade association to promote marketers, meaning it is also likely not independent. My BEFORE is returning mostly churnalism. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It is possible that many of the sources would be better directed towards an article on the company Interbrand, which does seems to have had a demonstrable and notable impact on the history of the business discipline of brand marketing. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Are there aspects of the article that are important for notability and rely on churnalism? Perhaps they can be addressed. Frans Fowler (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Since the article was nominated for deletion, I have restored the references to secondary sources, which are all reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of Murphy. (For instance, one of those sources is an interview with him broadcast by BBC Radio 4. Quite apart from the interest of its content, it shows that the BBC considers Murphy notable enough to transmit a serious programme that focuses on him.) I have also added references to two other sources that demonstrate his notability and the significance of his work. I would suggest (as does the nominator, above) that the question of notability can be resolved in favour of keeping the article.

The nominator and I have both made some changes to the layout and style of the article since it was proposed for deletion. The general merit of the article can be discussed on the article's Talk page, as can any aspect that might be perceived as promotional.

Indy beetle remarks (above) that The Marketing Society (one of the sources to which the article refers) "looks like a trade association to promote marketers, meaning it is also likely not independent". As far as I can see from some Web research, it doesn't promote marketers; rather, it appears to promote professional development and the exchange of best-practice expertise among marketing practitioners and teams. In particular, the piece the article refers to is an objective (sometimes critical) assessment of the past, present, and future of brand valuation, at the time it was written.

The secondary source references that I have restored had recently been removed when the article was nominated for deletion, because they were broken. There is a how-to guide on link rot that suggests why it might be better to tag, and keep, dead links.

Declaration of (dis)interest: I started the John Murphy article. I have never had any social, commercial, or other contact or relationship whatsoever with Murphy or any organisation or business he is involved in. I came to the subject in the course of translating a company's annual report, for which I needed to research Interbrand. Conscientious translators often do research, and Wikipedia articles such as this are an invaluable resource. Frans Fowler (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly not helpful for the Interband article to be deleted earlier this year. That was a bad call. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Frans Fowler makes a compelling case, and the nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Appears to pass WP:BASIC.4meter4 (talk) 18:24, 27 September 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) Coolperson177 (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Campion[edit]

John Campion (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:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:OFFICEHOLDER. The article is short and needs updating but is about a holder of a notable office who is now in his second term. This is Paul (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• PCCs (including this one) have received significant press coverage, albeit often on a local level. A police constituency can cover a population of several hundred thousand, or even into the millions. Indeed, the population of the West Mercia area is around 1.19 million. Consequently it is a notable post, and the holder of it is likely to attract ongoing media attention, thus making them notable. Campion's move to make the post a police and fire commissioner also adds weight to this article's notability. This is not a post akin to the leader of a local council. This is Paul (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete looking at WP:POLITICIAN he doesn't have significant coverage, hasn't held anything other than local office, and is otherwise unremarkable and non-notable. Certainly no PCC in England and Wales is automatically notable by merit of being the officeholder. --10mmsocket (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the consensus at the time the office was created was for PCCs to be notable in the same way we create articles for every elected MP, MSP, MS and so on (many of who have also previously only held local office, if any at all). We could have this discussion about any number of these PCCs, so perhaps what is needed is a wider debate about whether holders of the office should automatically qualify for articles, or whether the information could be incorporated into individual articles about the position (for example, there is an article for West Mercia Police and Crime Commissioner into which details of those elected to the post could be merged, particularly if they are not notable for anything else). This is Paul (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Is that consensus recorded anywhere? At the moment we have one article for the office, e.g. the aforementioned West Mercia Police and Crime Commissioner, then we have potentially between one and three individual articles for each of the people elected into the role. I for one would support having the former, but only having the latter if the person is truly notable (which I guess would apply to around a quarter or less of those elected) 10mmsocket (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I mean what is the current consensus on the WP:NPOL status of PCCs. For example, in the federal system of the US, county sheriffs are not automatically notable, but statewide officials are. However, the UK makes this confusing, as West Mercia is neither a region nor a county, but rather a collection of counties. Per List of administrative divisions by country, a region is the equivalent to a province, while a shire county is the equivalent of a county. Curbon7 (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  See my comment above. I am not aware there is consensus. 100% of the role articles have been created and I support that, but not 100% of the role holder articles (such as the one in this AfD nomination). I wouldn't get to hung up on counties vs. collection of counties. We have a specific number of police departments in England and Wales (plus one each in Scotland and Northern Ireland). Some are one county, some are one or more counties due to previous mergers, but all have the same equivalent status to each other, i.e. there is no hierarchy. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While there’s no written consensus specifically for the office of police and crime commissioner, consensus does come from the equal status they appear to have been given with MPs, etc. I seem to remember the articles on the individuals predate the police constituency articles, but could be wrong. Merging them into the office articles is a solution, but could be awkward and confusing. Why don’t we merge non-notable MPs into their constituency articles, for example?

As I’ve said above, we could have this discussion about any number of these PCCs, and a wider discussion is probably needed about what to do going forward. Comparisons between countries is confusing, since these are not county sheriffs, nor are they people elected to a legislature. If anything they would have the same status as a directly elected mayor. I’m going to raise this matter at WP:UKPOLITICS because I think it needs addressing. By the way, I hope you’re aware that we don’t have such things as police departments in the UK. This is Paul (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete PCCs fail WP:NPOLITICIAN in the same way that leaders of county councils do and I fail to see why they should be considered more notable. Number 57 14:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the comments above, Kent County Council covers a population of 1.58 million, Hampshire CC 1.38 million, Essex CC 1.49 million and Lancashire CC 1.22 million, so I would argue that this is very much akin to being the leader of a county council, if not actually less notable as they are only responsible for one thing, rather than many public services. Number 57 19:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Pretty much every PCC has an article. I think trying to get rid of them piecemeal is not at all productive. They generally satisfy WP:GNG in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No personal offense is meant, but WP:PERNOM is so unhelpful in this instance. Curbon7 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None taken. I kept it short because WP:NPOL doesn't really apply to PCCs and GNG is the pertinent guideline. The keep votes haven't really made a good argument under GNG for John Campion in particular, and I'm just not seeing one. Hence the reason I voted the way I did. 4meter4 (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for my reasons listed above. PCCs generally satisfy WP:GNG and WP:OFFICEHOLDER. Many of these articles have existed now for as long as nine years without incident. During that time we've been through three sets of elections after which articles on newly elected PCCs have been created. As far as I can tell none have been contested until now, which makes me think policy is unclear on the importance/non-importance of this office. Comparisons above are drawn with local councillors, or county council leaders, although (perhaps as a result of the UK media's focus on law and order) PCCs tend to get much more media coverage; the office is clearly something different to that of an elected councillor and/or sheriff. PCCs shape policing policy in an area, control the budget, and have the power to hire and dismiss a force's chief constable {https://www.choosemypcc.org.uk/about-pccs/}, but the office is a wholly political one with PCCs not drawn from serving police officers. Finally, attempts to improve this article were undermined when content that would add to a notability case for WP:BIO was removed. This is Paul (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That content was moved because it was about actions carried out as the elected official not as an individual. There is a distinction - the content would be relevant to the PCC article even if this individual article didn't exist. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The two are separate entities. The article is about the role of office itself, not the actions and decisions made by those who hold it. Consider whether you would do the same thing for a Member of Parliament and their constituency article, or articles about an individual trade union leader and that role. This is Paul (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as PCCS are elected over a large area, with electorates even larger than those of members of parliament.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He satisfy WP:OFFICEHOLDER. -GorgonaJS (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this nomination was launched less than 60 seconds after unrelated edits elsewhere. Any suggestion WP:BEFORE was done defies common sense. I doubt the subject is even in the nominator's search history. It follows, then, that "per nom" contributions here are valueless and should be disregarded, along with simplistic appeals to the same guidelines the nominator blindly cites. What's left are well-thought-through arguments about how this subject meets our inclusion criteria, as marginal as that notability might be in this instance. There's also a solid case to be made for all subjects in this category being considered notable, but that's probably a matter of RFC to establish some consensus. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an elected official whose election was covered by the BBC as well as local publications certainly meets WP:GNG and WP:NPOL (PCCs role probably falls somewhere between a judge and politician in the guidelines). Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An elected representative with 100,000+ votes from a region covering 1.3 million people. Always worth noting in cases such as these the arbitrary problem of using NPOL as an exclusionary tool: there are near 50 states with populations of less than 1.2 million whose national politicians are automatically accorded presumed notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @This is Paul: it appears that with this edit, you !voted a second time (no doubt in good faith!); I've struck the second one. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Goldsztajn: it was in good faith. I thought I had to vote again because the article had been relisted. Thanks for doing that anyway. This is Paul (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I would think that the holder of an elected office covering a significant area is likely to be someone that people would search Wikipedia to find information about, and he seems to attract enough media coverage to suggest general notability. Dunarc (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: IMO, PCC is an inherently notable position (with electorates several times larger than those of MPs) and, from what I can see, this article has enough valid references to prove this particular individual's notability. I don't really see why this page has been nominated in the first place. Gazamp (talk) 12:47, 27 September 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bałwan[edit]

Bałwan (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 currently being discussed in the AfD equivalent of pl wiki (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:09:03:Bałwan (posąg)) where the growing consensus is that this is just a synonym of idol (in this context in English, cult image). In my WP:BEFORE I also couldn't find anything outside few mentions of this term as a Slavic term for 'idol'. As such, I'd suggest redirecting it there per WP:SOFTDELETE/WP:AFD, but just in case I missed some sources (maybe in Russian? I checked Polish, but I don' speak Russian), let's discuss it here first. I am not proposing a merge since the article is mostly unreferenced, and right now I doubt there is any reason to mention in "cult image" the Slavic word for this, doesn't seem more relevant than the translation of this term in any other language or language group. PS. Please note that the main ref used here, Gieysztor, is problematic. The editor who translated this used it as a footnotes for every paragraph, but the Polish article just had this as a general, non-footntoed reference/further reading. As such, it is possible that the footnotes to Gieysztor do not verify all the content that they claim to do so. PPS. My WP:BEFORE only found a short, 2-papge Lithuanian paper discussing the etymology of this word in Lithuanian: [5]; full text [6]. I tried Google Translating it but the result if mostly gibberish, but from what I can tell it does not contain any discussion of this concept in the context of archeology outside nothing that it is a synonym to "idol". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sometimes everyday words in another language become terms of art in English-language archaeology, e.g. in Russian площадка is just an area or platform, but in English a ploshchadki is a very specific type of Neolithic floor construction. But I can't find any indication that this is the case here so, taking on good faith that plwiki has not found any good sources in Polish, this does seem like an overblown dictionary entry. – Joe (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Balwan is a specific type of idol with a specific form. It's not just a synonym. I added 2 book sources explaining the origin of this term. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This seems to list synonyms of idol in different languages. Your first source was added to reference this term as referring to a "log", that doesn't seem correct. The sentence in the text states "Besides the Boh. modla, idolum (fr. Model? or fr. modiliti, to pray?), we find balwan, block, log, idol, Pol. Balwan, Miklos balvan, Wall. balavanu, big stone...". That source does nothing to supporting the idea that this term is used for "a specific type of idol with a specific form". The second source, which states it it is a slavic term for idol "in form of the post", is a bit better, but it is still a single sentence that fais WP:SIGCOV. At best, all we have here is a sentence that "The Slavic term for an idol in form of a post is bałwan", referenced to the second source you found, that could be merged to the idol article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't it seem correct to you? More than 50% of page 1319 is describing ancient idols carved in stone and logs. It mentions variations of the term balwan, such as bal'van', balavanu and others. The same page describes that the balwan has the form of a pillar, column, log and so on. That's why I mentioned that balwan is not just another word for idol. All those statements contain references to other publications. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you added (one by Jacob Grimm no less) discuss the philology of the word bałwan, and what it might tell us about Slavic mythology. They could be used to expand wikt:bałwan, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. – Joe (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of a dictionary is to provide the definitions and etymology. If a random user finds the word balwan in a book and wants to know what it means the dictionary may provide some limited knowledge. In this case the wiktionary is saying that balwan is a snowman, which is not the only meaning. Therefore, it can be misleading for the user. On the other hand, an encyclopedic article can explain the subject in much more detail, as long as it is not deleted. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - IF the topic is WP:NOTABLE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to cite something I missed, but I didn't notice anything in ref 1 that states that the term "bałwan" means "idols carved in stone and logs". Also, that page cites a number of other words, such as Irish deilbh, why should we use bałwan if there are like give Irish words for this? Or why not use the balvan spelling, also available there? PS. I'll ping User:Sławobóg, whom I remember as being interested in old Slavic topics. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the spelling, that's exactly why we need philological sources to pick up the most appropriate English spelling. I don't think that Irish idols and Slavic idols are the same or even similar. Even the Polish bolwan is not exactly the same as the Russian variant. This is not my field of expertise. However, I suspect that calling a Slavic balwan a deilbh could be totally wrong. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that they don't. The first source does not say bałwan is the right term, it lists over a dozen related terms, all of which pretty much seem to be synonyms of "idol" and nothing more. We have an article on idol, we don't need separate pages for idol in Polish or Irish, that's what wiktionary is for. Redirects can be kept, and the rare reader who searcher for bałwan can be redirected to cult image, which should mention that Slavic idols are sometimes called bałwans (which means idol in Slavic language). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totem poles in North America are not the same as the moai (stone mauls in the Easter Island). So, why Irish and Slavic idols have to be unified under the same name? They represent different ancient gods, they are located in different places, they were built from different materials and so on. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This makes perfect sense to me, but we are lacking reliable sources with in-depth coverage that a) discuss Slavic idols and b) say that they should be called bałwans. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another one. It's an article published by the Institute of History of Ukraine. It's a study based on the The Tale of Igor's Campaign, one of the oldest and most renown Slavic writings. The whole article is about a stone balwan. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Of course it is, because this is the word used in Ukrainian. Or Polish. Or Russian. For "idol" (in the context of cult image). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me cite your own words from the nomination. You said that the existing sources do not contain any discussion of this concept in the context of archeology outside nothing that it is a synonym to idol. The article in the Ruthenica journal does describe the term in the context of archeology. The author is saying that one of those bolwans had to be extremely important if it was included into that ancient Slavic writing as a reference. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what I am saying is that that article, in Ukrainian/Russian, just using the word bałwan because it mans "cult image" in Ukrainian. You could just as well argue that we should have a separate article on pl:wieżowiec, a Polish word for skyscraper, because all sources found in Polish will use this word and not skyscraper. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I added English sources first. They prove that the subject is the correct term in English, not just the native language name like the skyscraper in Polish. Let me clarify as well that the article is written in Russian, not in Ukrainian. On the other hand, the epic poem was written in Old East Slavic, which is the common ancestor of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian languages. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the English source(s) don't establish this word is used in English outside of minor etymology/linguistic discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you google for "Mansiysk Bolvans" you can find many articles in English describing one of the Seven Wonders of Russia. So, the term is widely used. For example, nobody calls the Colossus of Rhodes as a large statue of Rhodes or the Kremlin as a stronghold. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So Mansiysk Bolvans are likely notable, but that doesn't mean balvan/balwan is. Your examples prove it. We have articles about Colossus of Rhodes and Kremlin but Colossus and Stronghold are just disambigs/redirects. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. We have articles like God, Jumala, Khuda or Bhagavan. Balvan (best Common Slavic form since Proto-Slavic form is *balъvanъ) as word and thing has its history that could be presented. I can do it, but not now. In the future if there is no enough content I will merge it into Slavic religion. Sławobóg (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sławobóg, Considering that you are more critical of the article in your comment at pl Wikipedia, and that possible errors have been identified - and no good in-depth sources are presented - wouldn't WP:TNT/redirecting for with no prejudice to recreation be better? I am concerned the current article is misleading and contains errors, and is unhelpful to the reader. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, a lot of articles about Slavic religion contain nonsense or no footnotes, but it's impossible to fix it all at once. Maybe give me a few days, because I just started expanding another article? Sławobóg (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be totally fine with this being draftified in your userspace. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is just a synonym of idol. -GorgonaJS (talk) 08:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom or draftify to Sławobóg's user space per discussion above.4meter4 (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julie le Brocquy[edit]

Julie le Brocquy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Apparently non-notable film producer. When I encountered this article, it was dominated by long promotional para about the author, which turned to be an apparent COI addition from 2013.[7] I removed that,[8] and began trying to rebuild the article,[9] starting with an Irish Times profile: Dwyer, Michael (7 June 2003). "Making it in the movies". The Irish Times. Dublin. ISSN 0791-5144.

However, I had little success finding other sources. So far, it's just

• selling a New York condo: Gould, Jennifer (March 29, 2017). "Ex-Tribeca Film Festival chief wants out of $4M Central Park condo". New York Post.
• wins court case against Dublin architect. Court report by same reporter in two Dublin newspapers:
  • Managh, Ray (1 November 2013). "Film producer Julie Le Brocquy awarded over €11,000 against architect". Irish Independent. Dublin. ISSN 0021-1222.
  • Managh, Ray (1 November 2013). "Film producer Julie Le Brocquy awarded €11,000 against architect". The Irish Times. Dublin. ISSN 0791-5144.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1385057/ gives her 5 credits as producer, but AFAICS the article's refs to those films don't even mention her, and her film company website http://www.lebrocquyfraser.com/ is dead. This looks to me like clear a fail of WP:FILMMAKER, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Film is not my usual subject area, so I may have missed some stash of coverage somewhere. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - there are a couple of sources (I also managed to find this interview from Hot Press) and she does seem to have been nominated or won a few awards. And given that she seems to be most active in the early 2000s, there might some additional sources about her that aren't online? NHCLS (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch, @NHCLS. But the Hot Press article is paywalled, so I can't see how much the interview is about le Brocquy, rather than about the film. The intro pitches it as about the film. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild Keep Hardly anything beyond what's listed above, I don't find much online about her. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found a significant article on her in PROQUEST: Helen Boylan (February 8, 2004). "Producing the forbidden". Business Post. Additionally, she has produced multiple award winning films, and I was able to find significant coverage in encyclopedias and journals on those works verifying the content. I have added many high quality refs to the article. Clearly passes criteria 3 and 4 of WP:CREATIVE.4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, enough sources for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Wallace[edit]

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

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

I found no notability per WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative delete, I only found her mentioned online in two lists of "top 10 oldskool tracks"[10] and [11], and one German source which basically just repeats this Wikipedia article under a section about a "Garfield" track (this band is apparently non-notable). There might be some offline sources from the 90s, magazines and the like which discuss her work with Suburban Base in more detail, but WP:MUSIC crit 4 is definitely not satisfied as she hasn't released two albums. As for her more recent work with Stereo MCs, this doesn't seem to have got any coverage in RS. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 26 September 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) 19:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sambaa Siva[edit]

Sambaa Siva (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 is obviously not ready for mainspace. Draftification was tried but didn't work. Going by the fact that the article creator has been adding this name to the cast of bluelinked movies, it appears the roles were minor. Can't find qualifying coverage online. Would appear to fail WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.(NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I'm sure the creator is going to try to recreate this though, judging by the recreation of the article while it was in draftspace, so it might have to be salted too. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find any detailed coverage or any evidence of any notable roles. His claim of playing for Telugu Warriors seems false as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Filmography is not sufficient for WP:NACTOR --Whiteguru (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of playing significant roles to meet WP:NACTOR. It's added as a starring role in Malini & Co. but TOI review does not even mention the name. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Article is devoid of sources indicating notability. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:45, 26 September 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 23:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gruschenka Stevens[edit]

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

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

BLP without proper references Rathfelder (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. See the corresponding article in German at de:Gruschenka Stevens Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No actual references there either.Rathfelder (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, autobiography, many minor roles, no clear indication that WP:NACTOR is met, not much significant coverage. This is better than nothing, though. Does anyone have the book? —Kusma (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per WP:TNT. I think she's had enough roles of significance to pass criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. However, it's basically an unsourced BLP that is very poorly constructed. If someone really wants to put in the effort to source and re-write it I'd be fine with keeping it, but as it is deletion is the better option.4meter4 (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. ... discospinster _talk 21:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peluches extronidos[edit]

Peluches extronidos (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 any notability KylieTastic (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE per nomination. It is not notable and good sources are lacking. It is also hard to ignore the tendentious behaviour of the main editor to this article. --10mmsocket (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per A7, unremarkable web content. This is a Youtube channel with no valid sources and only 57 subscribers. Even I have more than that. Not worth spending a week on this... Spicy (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jungian Society for Scholarly Studies. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Jungian Scholarly Studies[edit]

Journal of Jungian Scholarly Studies (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 PRODed and subsequently deleted back in April with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Sources present in the article are unreliable (ResearchGate), trivial library catalog entries, or not independent. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article undeleted upon request with promise to improve article. Nothing has happened since and a WP:BEFORE search still does not render anything significant. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to society. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Jungian Society for Scholarly Studies.4meter4 (talk) 20:00, 26 September 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 Christopher Nolan. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. Robert Oppenheimer Biopic[edit]

J. Robert Oppenheimer Biopic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Too soon. Is there even a title? WP:RUMOUR.(NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFF and not enough sources to meet WP:GNG. LizardJr8 (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Christopher Nolan until the film passes the notability criteria for future films. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Christopher Nolan.4meter4 (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaibutsu / Yasashii Suisei[edit]

Kaibutsu / Yasashii Suisei (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 two-track/double-sided single doesn't require a disambiguation page. Going to one page already provides navigation to the other, and each topic is easily distinguishable. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: a disambiguation page is supposed to differentiate between similarly-named articles... that's not what this is doing at all, and as the nominator states, typing in one of these names will allow you to navigate to the other anyway. We don't have dab pages for double A-sided singles, they're not needed. Richard3120 (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as an error in how disambig pages are supposed to work. The two songs can (and already do) reference each other in their respective articles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above arguments. The details can be discussed in their respective articles. SBKSPP (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar de Evia[edit]

Edgar de Evia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Biography for a non-notable photographer. damiens.rf 16:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf 16:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A simple google books search revealed multiple sources with independent significant coverage (just scroll through the first 4 or 5 pages). Clearly a competent WP:BEFORE was not done. I found a review of his work in The New York Times: See: "COLOR IN REVIEW: Popular Photography's Color Annual Surveys Medium's Current Status How Creative Is Color?" Range of Effects Color vs. Black and White". The New York Times. 19 May 1957. p. X17.4meter4 (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep multiple hits on Google books indicate that the subject was much discussed and there is no shortage of references about him. Mccapra (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kothaga Maa Prayanam[edit]

Kothaga Maa Prayanam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lacks coverage needed to meet WP:NFILM. Only one review from 123telugu is cited which is not enough. Cannot find anything else significant in a WP:BEFORE search in English and Telugu. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karshanam[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Not a single review from a notable critic. No coverage. scope_creep^Talk 14:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I searched for the Kannada name ಕರ್ಷಣಂ and added these three references: ^[1][2][3] I wish we could get participation from editors who read Kannada. I can't, so I am limited to what understanding I can get using Google Translate.Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That first one has malware on the url. These three reference copies of IMDB. The third one is a review about 12 lines, compressed into English. They are click sites and they are really and low-quality references. Very poor. scope_creep^Talk 00:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Nothing notable on my search. Kolma8 (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Asianet source is a full review by Kannada Prabha newspaper. If one more review of good quality is found, the article can be kept. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hello sir. Here is one more review in Prajavani [12]. It is a big newspaper in Kannada. And, more news about film when it go to dubbing etc [13], [14]. I remember even seeing more reviews in newspapers when it was released but don't know where to find them. It was a very popular movie. That's why so much news on it. Ntkn769 (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC) — Ntkn769 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NFILM and there is no significant coverage in reliable sources and current sources are mere announcements. I'm a little concerned about the reliability of this paper cutting, it was published under their "Common Supplement Edition", but looking at their website there is no such category and can't find anything in the archive. Also, this is just a regular news piece (not a review) and there is no evidence it was published in Prajavani. GSS ^💬 15:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and GSS.4meter4 (talk) 20:25, 26 September 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) 16:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo Venturi[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a writer and marketing person, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for writers or marketing people. The notability claim here is essentially that he exists, with no indication of the distinctions (awards, analysis of his significance in third-party media outlets, etc.) that it takes to turn existence into notability -- and the article is referenced to a Q&A interview in which he's answering questions in the first person and his two books metaverifying their own existence on Amazon.com, none of which are notability-supporting sources. As always, notability is not a question of using primary sources to verify that he's done stuff, it's a question of the degree to which he has or hasn't received independent analysis of the stuff he's done in media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't see any sourced notable achievements, just PR flim-flam. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. purely promotional article. --hroest 21:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Roland[edit]

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

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

Deprodded by Sdkb. I believe the topic fails WP:BIO. Note that, as is common in broadcast journalism (and the source of some confusion), the Emmy awards are from a state/regional chapter and are not national Emmys; I don't personally find that the awards from NATAS chapters are notable on their own. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:JOURNALIST. I could find no significant coverage of the subject, and as the nominator said all of his work has been regional in nature. Generally we don't consider regional Emmy Awards notable.4meter4 (talk) 20:31, 26 September 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Bhardwaj (actor)[edit]

Vishal Bhardwaj (actor) (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:NACTOR and WP:GNG. A before search returns with social media links, and some vanity press and potentially unreliable source such as this. He has mostly played minor roles that is not sufficient to demonstrate notability [15]--Creativitylove (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Creativitylove (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Creativitylove (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This page was not included in the daily AfD log per WP:AFDHOWTO. I've manually added it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 6 so that AfD regulars can participate. Aranya (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Frankly TNT seems like a good idea, but I can't find consensus for that option. I find no other consensus. As "no consensus" is de-facto keep, those who have made the "keep" argument are cordially invited to perform some much-needed pruning and verification. If this does not happen, I would recommend this be re-nominated after a period of time (say, two months?), as there is consensus that the article in its current state is not healthy for our encyclopedia. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Braver[edit]

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

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

Everything is unsourced and not suitable for Wikipedia. Ilhamnobi (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Written like a fawning fan page, or advertisement for this fellow. References are primary. Not helpful. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I doubt I'll be reading any of his books anytime soon, but he's written a fair number for which I could easily find (non-puff) reviews via Google. He seems to be a (minor) award winner and it looks like he's notable in his area. RomanSpa (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: do you know it's BLP and unsourced? See WP:BLPSOURCES. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not seeing a ton of reliable reviews in my search. The lack of sourcing and history of promotional tone/autobiographical interference issues also makes me think that even if sourcing is presented that show WP:GNG/WP:NAUTHOR are met, deleting per WP:TNT and then starting over again in the draftspace may be the best course of action. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Gut if keep. Unsourced puffery, but his books do have a few (not very complimentary in general) reviews, e.g., https://www.kirkusreviews.com/author/gary-braver/. I tried tracking down the Massachusetts award but can't find a reliable source. Searching for "Massachusetts Honor Book Award for Fiction" mainly gets his book, so I wonder what's really going on with the award.-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 18:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep His last book was noticed and has reviews. -GorgonaJS (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While the article has no reliable sources this author has published a number of books with a large press, namely Macmillan. A quick search turned up sources which could be added to the article. So while the article does need a ton of work, it's a keep for me.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I did find one quality ref. See below.4meter4 (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tom Nolan (10 July 2021). "This Week: Choose Me". The Wall Street Journal. p. C10. Book review of Choose Me

• Comment Comes up with quite a few hits in Gnews, some more tangential than others, has a few mentions of books published by him. Oaktree b (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I smell a COI. Article is unsourced for the vast majority of it. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Per the two reviews identified above, and the profile already cited. Agree with commenters above that the article needs to be gutted and reduced to a stub. Suriname0 (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, invoking WP:TNT. I think consensus is clear the article, as it stands, makes insufficient claims to notability and smells of COI and/or paid editing. Ifnord (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is a clear consensus not to delete the article, but the suggestions to merge or redirect have not been entirely refuted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Canadian sentiment[edit]

Anti-Canadian sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:PERMASTUB Not a notable subject on its own. Only item doesn't seem very notable. If someone wanted to keep the info, they could add it to Brazil–Canada relations. Funnily, the talk page for this article is huge. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article used to be a lot longer too. It was severely trimmed, following accusations that the old version surmounted to a hodgepodge trivia collection, much like the "in popular culture" writeups that flooded AFD a decade ago. Geschichte (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Clearly there are negative stereotypes directed towards Canadians that could be developed in an article like this. BD2412 T 20:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • E.g., Faye Hammill, Women, Celebrity, and Literary Culture between the Wars (2009), p. 113: "According to stereotype, Canadians are perceived as unassuming and possibly dull". BD2412 T 20:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calling Canadians dull is not an anti-Canadian sentiment, though. We however have a lot of "Stereotypes of" pages, see Special:Allpages/Stereotypes of. Geschichte (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This is not a permastub – the page has existed with substantial content since 2006 and the idea that it's just Brazil is ludicrous. What's happened here is that someone has blanked most of the content. I have restored this now. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't see what's changed since the last AFD, other than a lot more good references and versions in other languages. The Arabic version (ar:معاداة_الكندية) is perhaps better referenced than this one! Nfitz (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: it's a WP:COATRACK listing unrelated incidents in which Canada was criticized. Many of the examples given are trivial (a line from a sitcom), out of context (Voltaire), hyperbolic (Ann Coulter), or satirical (Blame Canada and Canadian Idiot). If this article exists, why not Anti-Tesla sentiment? It'd be easy to assemble quotations from famous people. If not deleted perhaps the best outcome could be to rename it List of complaints about Canada. --Cornellier (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cornellier clearly a WP:COATRACK listing of unrelated incidents.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to repeat User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's rationale from this similar AfD:

Articles like this are legitimate only in cases like Anti-Semitism where there is a substantial body of academic, third-party literature that discusses the phenomenon as such in its entirety (as opposed to simply individual events described as "anti-X'ist"). Otherwise the synthesis of such events constitutes WP:OR. Legitimate information pertaining to individual historical situations can be integrated elsewhere, for instance in articles on "History of X" or "X-Y relations".

In addition to Allan (2009), already referenced in the article, I found two more possibly usable sources on a google books search:

• Brunet, Michel (1969). Anti-Canadianism and Anti-Americanism in the Cultural and Political Tradition of the American and Canadian Peoples: Lecture Given at the University of Delaware ; Contemporary Canada and the Double Challenge of the United States' Continentalism and of the Quebecois' Nationalism.
• Morissey, Ronald S. (1968). American Attitudes Toward Canada, 1815-1854. University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Note that all three of these seem to focus on the US with regards to "anti-Canadianism". So far I'm not convinced there's a "substantial body" so my preference at present would be to merge notable incidents, such as the Saudi one, into bilateral relations articles, and redirect this title to foreign relations of Canada. If someone can demonstrate that there are more sources available whose primary topic is "anti-Canadianism" I may be convinced to change my vote to keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/selective merge Almost none of this is actually a cohesive topic of anti-Canadian sentiment, just different content synthesized together. In popular culture: all complete satire of the fact that nobody actually hates Canada so it's funny when people do. Domestic section: silly that this is the longest one, and I don't think it's appropriate to conflate Quebec nationalism with First Nations criticism with political complaints about policies. Incredibly inappropriate that irrelevant nonsense like "Conservative activists Steven Crowder, David Frum, Jamie Glazov, Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn have repeatedly criticized Canada's policies." was restored to the article when deservedly removed. Anti-Americanism doesn't need to include domestic criticism of our own government or culture. The diplomatic issues are also isolated events that aren't tied together as deep-seated sentiment against the Canadian people. Reywas92^Talk 14:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Selective Merge per filelakeshoe. It is a WP:COATRACK but there is some valuable content here to other articles which makes merger valuable. Additionally, future sources may be found to properly recreate the article. WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP apply here.4meter4 (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Negative sentiments towards Canada exist. 24.150.136.254 (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject meets WP:GNG and the sources tell that the sentiment against Canada is indeed specific. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Nfitz. It has only improved since the last AfD. Ajshul 😃
• Keep I see plenty of good sources in the article covering the topic. Mlb96 (talk) 02:27, 22 September 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 snow delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khumbu Malinga[edit]

Khumbu Malinga (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 per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Google search for name brings up about 35 original results, none of which are reliable / discuss the subject in any significant way. It's basically a resume, not an article. ... discospinster _talk 12:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 12:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 12:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 12:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]