Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 22: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:36, 2 October 2021

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< September 21	September 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 23:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Ciceron

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

Not seeing from the cited sources or elsewhere online how this can pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After doing a thorough BEFORE search in newspaper archives, PROQUEST, google books, etc. I could find nothing on this particular actor other than things like IMDB. Clearly a working actor, but in small insignificant parts. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. KidAd • SPEAK 01:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:31, 25 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) 14:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Floridana Airways

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

This is a made-up airline that I almost CSDed as a hoax before spotting the link to Virtual airline (hobby) - there are zero reliable sources out there and it's unlikely there ever will be any. I redirected it to the virtual airline article since there is no possibility of it ever being a valid article, but was reverted. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect We don't host things that are WP:MADEUP. Nate • (chatter) 23:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with a trout to the creator who also removed the redirect. I can be more verbose if needed. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fictional company that clearly fails WP:GNG, zero reliable sources discussing it Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, surely this falls under A7/A11. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So... this is a legit part of some VR/flight sim MMO? Doesn't need its own article, but might there be call for a list of such virtual airlines? Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jclemens: Why? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have a List of MUDs and several other, similar articles that document, in part, popular amateur-created content. If this rises to that level, then why not have a list in which to collect all the NN content (per WP:LSC)? Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Jclemens: Those are all games, not fictional elements within those games. We have a strong tendency to delete or prune WP:FANCRUFT lists without out-of-universe reliable sourcing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Made-up content is allowed on userspace, but this is an obvious hoax attempt. Minkai (talk to me)_{(see where I screwed up)} 17:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is not coverage on this from reliable, secondary sources. I do not think a redirect to the virtual airline (hobby) article would be beneficial since this is not mentioned there and would likely be confusing because of this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Gentleman wiki (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.4meter4 (talk) 23:51, 28 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) 14:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RedHouse Films

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

Unable to find any reliable, independent sources demonstrating notability for this company per WP:NCORP. Google Books and News show nothing, Google search shows only company pages (Facebook, IMDB, etc.) with no third-party reporting. I checked the links on the page but they are all either from the company itself or poor-quality sources. Zetana (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went through a number of newspaper search engines I have access to, and I couldn't find a single mention of the company besides one job listing. Zetana (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Zetana (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Zetana (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As much as I'd like to keep a page on a production company that made a film called "Testaclese: Man or Myth", there's just nothing out there to establish notability that I can find. A search on Google and Newspapers.com came up with nothing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zetana (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 23:53, 28 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) 14:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Hill, Charlton County, Georgia

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

I doubt this is a community; coordinates there show no buildings or houses to speak of. wizzito | say hello! 22:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing there - does not pass WP:NGEO Lightburst (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've been able to find some references to a post office at Silver Hill, Chattooga County, Georgia and to a subdivision in Atlanta, but nothing beyond a listing in a 1990s USGS publication that says nothing significant about this and a couple of references to the "Silver Hill Road". I can't even fathom what was ever supposedly here, as it's a point with basically nothing there on the edge of a large swamp on old USGS topos. Hog Farm _Talk 03:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Newspaper sources are fairly confounded, and none of them that I can see are referring to a locale. None of them are from Charlton County (or even any county adjacent to Charlton). If Hog Farm cannot find anything either, that pretty much settles it as far as I am concerned. jp×g 18:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.4meter4 (talk) 23:53, 28 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) 14:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pyles Marsh, Georgia

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

The coordinates lead to a literal swamp/body of water. wizzito | say hello! 22:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NGEO this might be a road.. Lightburst (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only references to it I could find in a newspaper search were several railway schedules from the 1880s. I'm guessing this was either a railroad siding or at most a short-lived station, and the GNIS recorded it as a populated place rather than a locale, as it's done for so many other railroad locales in the western states. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's unclear what the name on the map refers to, but whatever it was doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 20:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The marsh itself probably meets WP:GEOLAND, but this is about the supposed community; delete seems to be the only option. BilledMammal (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glynn County, Georgia. Newspaper results show that this definitely existed. However, the only mentions of it are as a train stop in 1886 through 1888. The only subsequent coverage is in two passing mentions in 1893. jp×g 18:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGEO. While I appreciate JPxG's source hunt, I'm not seeing how mentioning a train spot at this location in the county article isn't WP:Undue weight, and I'm not a fan of redirects to articles that don't mention the topic.4meter4 (talk) 00:07, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Zapata

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Not an academic, nor a notable physian. scope_creep^Talk 22:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC - she is cited in the news as an expert by multiple independent and reliable sources, including with in-depth coverage beyond her employment, e.g. UW Health says Midwest is in critical need of convalescent plasma (WKOW, January 2021, biographical information, expert opinion), 'I wasn’t sure there wasn’t any hope in sight': Milwaukee hospital workers reflect on one year since COVID-19 pandemic began (NBC4, March 2021, biographical information, expert opinion), Dane County leads state in COVID-19 vaccination, but racial disparities persist (Wisconsin State Journal, May 2021, also includes biographical, career information), Racial disparities heightened with COVID-19 crisis (Capital Times, May 2020, multiple paragraphs highlighting her experience and expert opinion), 'Black resilience' theme of this year's Juneteenth celebration (Wisconsin State Journal, June 2021, biographical and career information, parade marshal, expert opinion), Black women are five times as likely to die in childbirth. Here’s what that looks like in northeast Wisconsin. (Green Bay Gazette, July 15, 2021, several paragraphs), Wisconsin's New Epidemiologist Wants To Be A 'Listening Ear' For Statewide Community (NPR Wisconsin, May 2021, interview, "As Wisconsin's newly-named chief medical officer and state epidemiologist, Dr. Jasmine Zapata said she will use her experience as a physician [...]"), With Wisconsin Disparities in Mind, Researchers and Advocates Reimagine Health Care for Black Mothers (PBS Wisconsin, April, 2021, includes biographical and career information, e.g. "assistant professor and researcher at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health"), so there appears to be sufficient sourcing to support an article. Beccaynr (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC) There is also this academic work (co-authored) and a recent appearance on PBS News Hour (August 2021) as an expert, as well as this: Empty Cradles: Is stress to blame for preterm births? (Journal Sentinel, originally published August 2011, republished August 2021, biographical, education, significant coverage). Beccaynr (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Beccaynr. Please expand the article accordingly. scope_creep^Talk 09:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that this venue is WP:NOTCLEANUP. As the nominator, you have the same (or perhaps greater) obligation to improve the article. pburka (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to expand this article, and currently working on it - I usually tend to wait for at least one other participant !voting keep in an AfD discussion before I attempt WP:HEY, but with scope_creep's encouragement, I am going for it. Beccaynr (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with pburka. The onus is not on an AfD voter to add those sources to the article. Many if not all of those sources could have been identified in a WP:BEFORE by the nominator. TJMSmith (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with pburka, but had interpreted the request as specifically directed at me, and maybe informed by my general history at AfD, and/or maybe what I have posted in the Selected Work section of my userpage, or my self-identification as one of the editors known for behaving like dogs spotting squirrels. I also sometimes accept requests to help expand articles at my Talk page, and with the above feedback in mind, that seems like a better forum for future requests. I do review AfD to find articles to improve, and I apologize for how my enthusiasm for a wide-open field of squirrel contravened the general process. Beccaynr (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the excellent sourcing work by Beccaynr. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 17:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of this assistant prof of WP:Prof or WP:GNG. If it needs to be said that she served as a parade marshal then the bottom of the barrel has been reached. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Comment per WP:HEY, I have not yet added all of the sources I found above, but in the course of my expansion of the article, I found and added more sources that further support WP:BASIC notability, including e.g. Madison pediatrician Jasmine Zapata kicks off Midwest 'Girls Empowerment Tour' (The Capital Times, 2018), Madison pediatrician, Hip Hop architect, UW professor team up for Kenyan girls fleeing abuse (The Capital Times, 2018). And from my view, her honor as a parade marshal in a Juneteenth celebration is worthy of mention, particularly in the context of the rest of the article and the themes of her career. Beccaynr (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY/WP:BASIC. XOR'easter (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. Thank you to Beccaynr for the WP:HEY. TJMSmith (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Improvements, including multiple newspaper stories directly about her over a span of multiple years, demonstrate a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY passes WP:GNG now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. WP:SIGCOV is met thanks to the hard work by Beccaynr.4meter4 (talk) 23:59, 28 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. While there was significant support for deleting the article, much of it was based on the place not being inhabited. After JPxG's evidence that it was inhabited, opinions shifted towards keeping the article. (non-admin closure) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murrays Crossroads, Georgia

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

Appears to be a literal crossroads, not a community. wizzito | say hello! 22:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This list of cemeteries suggests that Murrays Crossroads was once a community. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain, I think we should be cautious about using Findagrave for this sort of thing. Aside from being unreliable as a user-generated source (see WP:RSP), three of the cemeteries in the list are some distance from the crossroads [1][2][3]; one does not show a specific location but appears to be a family burial plot [4]; and the only one at the crossroads is just a single grave [5]. I'm not sure how they came up with their location categorization but many similar sites use an algorithm to identify the closest named point on the map without any vetting to make sure it's actually a community. Even if we take Findagrave at face value, keep in mind that cemeteries are often found in areas with dispersed populations and don't necessarily indicate the presence of a community. –dlthewave ☎ 21:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (or delete) with Schley County, Georgia#Communities. Take the relevant into and have a short write up there describing the cross roads. I don't think it's notable enough for its own article yet I think it deserves mention in the county. Masterhatch (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Historical topos show an intersection with a few buildings. I'm not finding any coverage indicating that this was a community, so I'll chalk it up as a named intersection that GNIS mislabeled as a "populated place". I also Oppose Redirecting without substantial sourcing. –dlthewave ☎ 19:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was expecting to be in favor of deletion, but there are in fact sources referring to this as an inhabited place. One in 1893 refers to it as a "prosperous country settlement", and another in 1959 refers to it as a "town". It is also referred to as having been a settled area (with its own post office) in this NRHP document. I have incorporated this information into the article; I think this should address the concerns that have been brought up. * jp×g 18:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JPxG.4meter4 (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be/have been a settlement per above, with its own post office. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 11:58, 30 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. Whether a redirect is merited will be left up to a separate editorial decision. ✗plicit 23:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jot Em Down Store, Georgia

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

According to the article itself, this isn't a community, but more likely just where the store (Jot Em Down Store) in question was. The coordinates lead to some farmland and houses. wizzito | say hello! 22:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - GNIS describes it as a locale and there's no evidence that this was ever anything more than a country store. The article history is quite revealing and is an excellent example of how Wikipedia manufactures unincorporated communities out of whole cloth. The original version [6], though unsourced and written by an inexperienced editor, sounds plausible: "... not an actual town, but actually just a local landmark that citizens use for navigation purposes. Due to its navigation uses, it is often referred to in map and atlas listings." But then someone who'd been around long enough to know better inexplicably rewrote [7] the whole thing as an unincorporated community, still with no sourcing whatsoever! This type of behavior creates a huge workload at AfD and was never acceptable, even in the early days when expectations were much lower. –dlthewave ☎ 04:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NGEO. If anyone finds anything ping me. I was unable. Google populates all sorts of flower sellers and weather reports which mention fictional place. Lightburst (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this describes someone from the "Jot Em Down Community" and this also is related to a "Jot Em Down" community. However, I didn't find much coverage besides that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterhatch (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be, well, a store. No indication of notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gilmer County, Georgia, since it seems fairly borderline; people are familiar with Jot 'em Down's Seed and Feed (formerly Chuck's, perhaps). Newspaper sources confirm this, with a 2014 story mentioning that there's one in Forsyth County, and that "a Jot Em Down Store was so popular in Pierce County that the unincorporated community was named "Jot Em Down", according to "Georgia Place-Names"." Doesn't seem like it warrants an article in its own right, but it could be useful as a navigational aid. jp×g 17:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It ought to be noted that the 2014 story I mentioned is the same one linked earlier by BeanieFan. jp×g 17:45, 28 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) 16:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Ponthier

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

non-notable singer. scope_creep^Talk 22:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO#1 appear supported e.g. The Guardian 2021, Dallas Observer, 2021, Vogue 2021, NPR Music, 2021, Billboard 2021, American Songwriter 2021, Paste 2021, NewNowNext, 2021, Them, 2021. Beccaynr (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, Beccaynr. Maybe you can update the article? scope_creep^Talk 09:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Beccanyr. Rab V (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr. Also, the nominator should be more thorough in doing WP:BEFORE before nominating articles for deletion. ExRat (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ExRat: The subject is a one hit wonder, with no coverage, no reviews of her music. The coverage that is there, is due to a viral hit, that is all. There is no coverage apart from that and because musicbio, cng are so degraded in terms of what is acceptable now, it is unlikey that the article would have been deleted. It is unfortunate we are becoming a listing service, a directory for crap. 10 year ago it would have needed some reviews of the work and some history of excellece over a sustained period. Now, because they are mentioned in a few place, they are not notable. She is not notable, but the article can't be deleted. Wikipedia is becoming a version of Everything 2. The founders knew this would happen and were aware of this effect over the long term. scope_creep^Talk 20:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article when nominated for deletion presented Ponthier as if her only claim to notability was based on her work with Lord Huron, essentially a variation of the classic WP:NOTBYRELATION issue that from my view, could reasonably support an AfD discussion. I am working on expanding the article, and it appears she has a body of work that has been independently reported on, along with biographical information that supports a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after WP:HEY by Beccaynr.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after WP:HEY by Beccaynr. Definitely meets GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr. The Ann Powers review alone indicates notability -- the additional coverage confirms it. JSFarman (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Successfully WP:HEYed. BilledMammal (talk) 01:22, 28 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) 14:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goose Island, Georgia

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

Coordinates lead to a road (Goose Island Road) near a lake (Goose Island Lake). A few houses are nearby, but I doubt this is a community. wizzito | say hello! 22:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom.Masterhatch (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, and fails WP:GEOLAND - there doesn't seem to be an island on the lake that this could plausibly refer to. BilledMammal (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Newspaper sources are badly confounded by the presence of a Goose Island in Chicago; even when restricting the search to sources from Georgia, this is still the vast bulk of results. There are 160 of them, from Fulton, Muscogee, Bibb and Troup County (none from Gilmer County, where the alleged island is located). There is a Goose Island near Kansas City, a Goose Island near the Atlantic coast in North Carolina, a Goose Island in Illinois, et cetera. Nothing referred to by that name in Georgia. So what about the island itself? Per USGS maps, from 1888 to 1911 there wasn't even a lake at those coordinates. In 1935 they don't seem to have finished drawing the quadrangle (this is quite bizarre and I've never seen it before). At any rate, in 1946 there is a "Goose Island" labelled on the map, but it sure as heck isn't an island (as, still, there is no lake indicated). By 1988, the lake has finally decided to show up; there are indeed a couple of very small islands on the northern end, but they are nowhere near the "Goose Island" label; they seem to be gone by 2011 regardless. What I'm taking away from all this is that Goose Island was the name of something or other (since the lake is named Goose Island Lake), but it wasn't a populated community, and it wasn't an island. jp×g 17:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:GEOLAND.4meter4 (talk) 00:10, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fouts Mill, Georgia

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

Coordinates lead to the end of a road where there are a few houses and a creek. I doubt this is a community. wizzito | say hello! 22:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Masterhatch (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find a bunch of passing mentions to Fouts Mill Road and Fouts Mill Road Bridge, a passing reference to a mill in Texas, and several references to a voting precinct in Florida, but I'm finding basically nothing about this location. Hog Farm _Talk 04:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many mentions of "Fouts Mill Road"; the only mention of a "Fouts Mill" is this, which mentions that it was owned and operated by Herbert Fouts at some point during the 20th century. It does not look like anyone has ever referred to this as a populated area, and hardly anyone has even mentioned the eponymous mill. jp×g 17:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JPxG and nom.4meter4 (talk) 00:10, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barretts Mill, Georgia

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

...literally leads to a house in a forest along a road in Athens. I don't see a community here. wizzito | say hello! 22:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Masterhatch (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it doesn't seem to be an inhabited place now, and per newspaper results, it doesn't seem to ever have been. It's referred to as a mill in every source I can find: in 1885, "Mr. E. A. Carter exhibited in down an alligator which he killed while it was asleep on a log at Barrett's mill pond with a blow from a rail, on Tuesday. The gator was eight feet long, and had an ugly look about him". In 1886, "a negro at Binns & Barrett's mill had his finger cut off last Tuesday by the saw". In 1891, "the dam out at Barrett's mill, on Walnut branch, near Waynesboro, is gone". Later we find two mentions of a bridge over Barretts Mill creek. I do not see evidence of a populated place, only that unfortunate accidents were visited upon a man, an alligator, and a dam on three Tuesdays in the late 1800s. jp×g 17:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JPxG.4meter4 (talk) 00:12, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Altamaha Place, Georgia

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

Same coords as Altamaha Park, Georgia (which seems to be a real community; that article has a "Georgia Place Names" citation). Likely to be a duplicate wizzito | say hello! 22:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's a decent amount of coverage for Altamaha Park, which seems to consist of a mobile home park with a public boat launch and campground, but I couldn't find any results whatsoever for Altamaha Place. Nothing on the map, no archived news articles, not even the typical autogenerated stuff. –dlthewave ☎ 23:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: Altamaha Park and Altamaha Place have the same GNIS ID, which would indicate either some sort of error or an alternate name for the same place. –dlthewave ☎ 23:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As dlthewave mentions, the GNIS entry referenced by the article is for "Altamaha Park", not "Altamaha Place". There are no newspaper mentions of "Altamaha Place", ever; it seems like this was a typographic error in the creation of the article. When you search "Altamaha Park", there are several results, but they seem to be referring to a place in Toombs County (like this 1969 mention). It also mentions here that it's a recreation area on the Altamaha River, so I think it's possible that there are lots of different parks along the same river being referred to by this name. There does exist a website for the Altamaha Regional Park, which mentions 56 campsites; this park has five newspaper mentions. At any rate, however, that's for Altahama Regional Park; "Altamaha Place" seems to simply not exist. jp×g 17:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Wizzito, and JPxG.4meter4 (talk) 00:13, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krakoa

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

Article does not indicate that this is a notable element of the comic books. There are no reliable third-party sources cited that discuss it, and the text is more suited to a fan wiki. ... discospinster _talk 22:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 22:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The impetus for the new generation of x-men? Major milestone in the Silver Age of Marvel Comics, and you couldn't find references about Krakoa? I think maybe you might want to consider reading up on comics history before nominating things for deletion. - jc37 22:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found below by Haleth, otherwise merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: K per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If we are to find sources, we should make use of Google like how the sources found by editors like @Jhenderson777: and @Toughpigs: were found. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. I may not have been there for the first nomination, but I am getting myself involved here and supporting @BOZ: in asking for editors to add more sources to the page. The last nomination had it sent to List of Marvel Comics characters: K and might be sent back there in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE if the outcome is merge. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. The sourcing situation is no different than eight years ago. The only real change is more plot information. There is nothing showing this needs an article at this time. TTN (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not up on my X-Men lore, but surely this would be more appropriate to merge to the locations section of Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, right? Argento Surfer (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But Krakoa does not appear in the MCU. Haleth (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Features of the Marvel Universe would also work, then? ;) BOZ (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the link I meant to use. Thanks BOZ. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST, and because it appears that the nominator has not done a WP:BEFORE and was mostly preoccupied with the article's current contents. I found the following English language sources through a 5 minute search on Google Scholar:
- The Mutant Land: How the Island Krakoa Dictates the Mutant Society in House of X
- Radiant Beings: Narratives of Contamination and Mutation in Literatures of the Anthropocene
- Lifeglows Through the Anthropocene: Development of the Radical Imagination and Response-Ability Within Superhero Comics
- Representations of Israel, literal and allegorical, in X-Men comics, apparently has a significant section covering Krakoa's analogy to the state of Israel, along with Magneto's various bases.

This is before we even start counting various pop culture and entertainment websites and outlets that discuss Krakoa in a less serious manner. I did not bother with a Google Books search because a lot of false positives came up, with lots of results for the X-Men source material itself. There is this book which provides some helpful insight into its concept and development. jc37 is spot on, this topic represents a major though recent milestone from Marvel's canon, and the sources I highlighted are very recently published. Haleth (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable based on sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now unless someone wants to add a section on reception/significance based on the above sources, then I'd reconsider my vote. Redirect should be soft delete, with no prejudice to reusing past content later when someone wants to rescue this by adding a section on real world significance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I took the trouble to find viable sources and bring the attention of the participants to the said sources, I would most certainly be utilizing them, unless another editor in this discussion is keen to do the work of writing prose instead. Wikipedia's notability guideline is quite clear that WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN are important considerations when deciding whether a particular topic is presumed to merit an article. Your response seem to indicate that you just want this topic's article to disappear from mainspace, regardless of whether the sourcing constitutes WP:SIGCOV from reliable and independent sources. Haleth (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the secondary sources found. The current state of an article is not decisive when considering deletion. I wonder if a proper search according to WP:BEFORE, a central part of the deletion nomination process, was done when "There are no reliable third-party sources cited that discuss it" is stated despite some of the sources found be Haleth appear in e.g. the Google Scholar search. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"no reliable third-party sources cited" (emphasis mine) makes me think you are right to wonder. BOZ (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by Haleth. The subject of the article meets GNG, regardless of the current state of the article. "If the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the above sources which are enough to pass the minimum standards of GNG. Current state of the article is not relevant to notability, as others have said. Rhino131 (talk) 12:40, 30 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) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure that "Tlangmyer", the creator of this page, is indeed Tom Langmyer. 35.134.140.82 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Langmyer

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

Subject is not notable, vanity page created by, presumably, the subject of the article. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per COI, AUTOBIOGRAPHY, and An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Minkai (talk to me) 15:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This honor indicates he passes criterias 1 and 4 of WP:JOURNALIST. "The Buffalo Bob Smith Award is given to an individual who is either a native of Western New York, or worked in this market, but made their mark on the national stage." 4meter4 (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:JOURNALIST per 4meter4's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he passes WP:JOURNALIST Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:48, 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 redirect to Bands Reunited. There's an obvious consensus that the article subject fails GNG; and no reasons or policy based argument has been given as to why a redirect would be unsuitable. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Haleem

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

Fails WP:NJOURN. Lacks notability and sources. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any independent sources worth including, so I don't think that a decent article can be written. Delete.Yabunirami (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was a good faith creation at the time, but due to all the lessons we've learned over the years about how easily our structure can be abused by self-promoting wannabes we have much, much stricter sourcing requirements in 2021 than we did in 2006. Fifteen years ago, the ability to verify his existence as a host on a national radio network was all that was required, and actually getting him over WP:GNG on the sourcing was strictly optional — but today we require reliable source coverage about him, which he just doesn't have, and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things isn't good enough anymore. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bands Reunited per WP:CHEAP. In looking at google books there are many publications discussing his work on that program. It's not enough to pass WP:NJOURNALIST, but I think it is a reasonable redirect target.4meter4 (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NJOURN and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bands Reunited per 4meter4. Also possible to redirect to The Point (radio show), but Bands Reunited seems to have better coverage and so is the more appropriate supertopic. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Very weak article. I simply cannot see how the WP:JOURNALIST criteria can be met.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentleman wiki (talk • contribs) 19:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Bearcat. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Reo

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

Non-notable singer, doesn't satisfy musicbio. scope_creep^Talk 21:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:CREATIVE#3 as the creator of a significant body of work. Her albums have been reviewed in reliable sources like Pitchfork and NPR. pburka (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the cited sources show significant coverage of Reo and/or her work. Also found album reviews in magazines like Glide, New Noise and Ear Buddy all of which show enough coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to WP:MUSICBIO#1 (I added 2013 coverage from Stereogum, a 2016 NPR Music review, a 2019 Paste Magazine review, a 2019 NPR Music review, and 2019 coverage from Broadway World to the article) it also looks like there is support for WP:NMUSICOTHER given the frequency of the coverage, e.g. there is also more from Stereogum in 2016 and 2019, NPR (2015), Pitchfork (2016). Beccaynr (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is good work. Maybe somebody could update that article. scope_creep^Talk 22:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after WP:HEY above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO per Beccaynr, pburka, and Spiderone's sources.4meter4 (talk) 00:25, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maine, Maine

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

I highly doubt this is a real place, but instead a WP:GNIS error. A 2017 edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Maine,_Maine&diff=780561315&oldid=772063754) stated "The location designated as a "village" is actually the name of a siding in the township of Ft. Fairfield, ME. The GNIS ref: is likely due to a typo as the location is on the Main Siding Road". The coordinates listed in the article on Google Maps show a farm, a few buildings, and a trail. Unfortunately, it's a little hard to verify any other info as it's pretty hard to find information, considering that this 'village' has the same name as the state it's in, and since the GNIS website is down at the moment. wizzito | say hello! 21:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 21:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 21:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 21:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a single newspaper reference to a resident of Main Siding, but between the almost certainly incorrect name, the lack of any other information on Main Siding, and the fact that Caribou, Maine has annexed the area, I don't think we need an article here. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:TheCatalyst31; I found a topo map from 1930 that referred to the area as "Maines Siding", but from 1933 onwards it seems to be referred to as just Maine. wizzito | say hello! 01:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like either "Maines Siding" or "Maine Siding" turns up anything useful either; almost all of the results are either local siding businesses or OCR mistakes. (And of course Maine on its own is impossible to search.) Even if the name was correct, it may have been little more than a railroad siding that got a road named after it. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per all above, this is a railroad siding w/o significant coverage. Hog Farm _Talk 03:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination, and all of the above. A railroad siding is a railroad siding, not a place.TH1980 (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's sad to say, but the obvious barrier to finding any information about this place means it's very unlikely that sources will be uncovered. Since it's been annexed, we're looking at a historical entry anyway. The lack of sources means that it's difficult to verify its existence, and it's not like we can write much about it in a potential redirect target. jp×g 16:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.4meter4 (talk) 00:26, 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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Ferlet

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

BLP without working references Rathfelder (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expand. I replaced the link by a working one. There is plenty of text in French and a long list of films. Looks clearly notable to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That sole reference is not an independent source, but a text provided by the artist: it is identical to the biography on his own website[8]. Fram (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Better that than a link that doesn't work at all, imho. Also: that a composers' union quotes it is different from just a person's website. Anyway, I added more sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I found [francetvinfo.fr this] and as I don't speak French, put it under external links. If he indeed composed music for Macron's campaign - and that's what I read - he should be notable enough, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't know where you guys draw the line between non-notable and notable musicians, but he was indeed prominent enough to compose music for the Macron campaign, in addition to being hired to write scores for films.--Berig (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The biographical sources aren't great (but some amount of SPS can be acceptable), but there are some mentions that make him notable. There's a minor scandal about a campaign hymn he composed for Sarkozy (related to the fr:Affaire Bygmalion). The film Sur le chemin d'école is notable (César for best documentary 2013), but I have only found very short references to Laurent Ferlet's work. —Kusma (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough mentions and sources for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:COMPOSER. Written music for films covered not just in French language publications but also in prominent English language publications like Variety.4meter4 (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N Lightburst (talk) 20:09, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. See comment by Rathfelder below. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Senait Ghebrehiwet Mehari

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

BLP with no references Rathfelder (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to withdraw this now there are references. Rathfelder (talk) 22:32, 25 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) 18:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Collisson

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not making or reliably sourcing any strong claim to passing our inclusion standards for writers. The notability claim on offer here is that she and her work exist, with no indication of the distinctions (literary awards, significant reliable source coverage analyzing the significance of her work, etc.) that it takes to turn existence into notability -- the closest thing that was present, until I stripped it as a violation of WP:ELNO, was a handful of direct offsite links to online bookstores or web-published copies of her own work, and while there have been additional footnotes here in the past that were recently removed by an editor claiming to be the subject herself, they were still just of the "her own work cited as proof of its own existence" variety rather than notability-building third party media coverage about her or her work.
The only reason I'm not just immediately speedying this is because it's been around (without ever having been properly referenced) since 2006. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's interesting to see that two years ago, an editor who stated she was Nancy Collisson tried to have the article deleted but the request was refused because too many other editors had contributed to the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The most effective way to have a biography kept is for the subject to request deletion. Thincat (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are two more related historical AfD discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Buffy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Buffy (2nd nomination). The Mr. Buffy page is currently a redirect to Collisson's page. pburka (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'VE ASKED YOU TO DELETE THE PAGE AND YOU JUST WON'T DO IT! WHOEVER SAID THAT THE BEST WAY TO GUARANTEE YOUR PAGE WILL STAY IS BY ASKING FOR IT TO BE DELETED, WAS CORRECT. MY GOD WHAT DOES IT TAKE? DELETE IT ALREADY! I'M NANCY COLLISSON AND YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION. AND IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DELETE IT, THEN STOP HUMILIATING ME WITH THIS UGLY THREAT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DELETE THE DAMN PAGE! IT LOOKS SHITTIER THAN IT WOULD WITHOUT YOUR UGLY REMARKS ALL OVER IT. EITHER STICK THE KNIFE IN AND KILL IT OR REMOVE YOUR THREATS!

Please note that we do not have a responsibility to obey your wishes; you have a responsibility to obey our rules. If, say, you had tried to ask for deletion the first time through our proper processes for that, then it might have gone differently than it did — but that was not a failure on our part to meet any responsibility we had, it was a failure on your part to follow the correct process. Especially given that you created the article yourself in the first damn place — so in reality, you wanted a Wikipedia article until you realized that our conflict of interest rules don't permit you to control it, and only then did you change your mind to begin demanding deletion. So know that if you say one more word on Wikipedia in the tone of voice you just tried to pull here, I'm also going to block your editing privileges for violating our civility rules — either you speak to us calmly and with respect, or you go jump off a cliff. The article will be kept or deleted based on our rules, not yours. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it might have helped if the admin who rejected the G12 had actually told the nominator what the correct process was. Our processes are sometimes arcane and difficult-to-discover for newcomers. pburka (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reason to doubt that this editor is, in fact, the subject, and notability is very marginal anyway. (Typically deletion discussions are allowed to run for at least 7 days, so the notice will remain in place that long.) pburka (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per request of subject and notability failure. Minkai (talk to me)_{(see where I screwed up)} 20:44, 23 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) Enos733 (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Free Party Canada

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

New article created after previous article deleted just a few days ago; WP:G4 rejected. Article still suffers from the same WP:NORG problems, namely that there is little to demonstrate that this one-issue anti-vaccine fringe party is encyclopedically notable. Sources used are still the party's own website, evidently press releases by the party or the candidates, or passing mentions in coverage of anti-vaccination movements more generally. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per the prior AFD, political parties are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's possible to use primary sourcing to verify that they exist — the notability test is the reception of reliable source coverage about the party in media to get it over WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. The Le Journal de Québec citation is the only one here that's starting to put a foot on the right path — but it doesn't get this to the finish line all by itself if it's the only solid major media source in play and you're otherwise relying on a mixture of primary sources and smalltown community hyperlocals. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD allows local sources to be utilized to demonstrate notability if at least one national or regional source is included. The sheer amount of local coverage puts this subject across the finish line. Mottezen (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AUD most certainly does not say (or mean) that the moment you can find one decent quality source from major media you're allowed to rely entirely on smalltown community hyperlocals otherwise. Local coverage isn't entirely verboten in Wikipedia, and I never said it was, but local coverage isn't necessarily enough all by itself if it's virtually all that a topic actually has — we do require broad coverage from a variety of major media, not just smalltown pennysavers, and that coverage does have to be analytical in nature rather than just local reportage of election campaign events and results. One national source is merely the starting line, the bare minimum that has to be present just to make the article not speediable — it is not in and of itself the finish line, and does not represent enough coverage to automatically require keeping the article in a full AFD discussion. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article creator here. Didn't realise there was a previous AfD. In my opinion, it's just unencyclopedic to have a party that got 46000 votes (and counting, 1%-2% everywhere it ran) and federally seventh party in terms of support not to have a page. The Le Journal de Québec piece gives plenty of information; I'll look for more and better sources, but there's plenty of regional coverage of particular candidates (and I don't see anything in notability that would disqualify local coverage). In my opinion, someone looking at the 2021 election in 2050 will want to know that this was a "Free from Covid-restrictions" rather than a free trade or a free zoo animals or a correctional reform party. I assume everyone realises, but just for reference, coverage is pretty much all in French so English non-finds not so relevant. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep, precedent from similar election results in past elections. Kingofthedead (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What precedent do you think you're talking about? We very definitely don't have any precedent that running candidates in an election is any sort of automatic free notability pass for a fringe political party, so what precedent do you think you're talking about? Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and looked at all Cdn federal elections since 2000 inclusive, and there is no party with over 10,000 votes without a WP page, and most under 1,000 do. The closest is the 2019 Veterans Coalition at 6,300. FPC has more than 7 times that support. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep: It’s very easy to find adequate french-language sources on this party on Google. Mottezen (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all of the sources you can find, including many currently used in the article, report the same info you'd find in a campaign flyer, and in the same promotional tone: here's some basic biographical info on the candidate and their vague, idealistic vision of what they'll do if they're elected, with no editorial or critical review whatsoever. Here are some examples:
1. [9]: "le Parti libre souhaite bâtir une économie locale plus solide, soutenir les aînés pour qu’ils n’aient pas à payer des loyers exorbitants et améliorer l’accès aux services." (Roughly: "The Free Party wants to build a stronger local economy, support seniors so they don't pay exorbitant rents and improve access to services.")
2. [10]: "Son implication en politique se résume à la maxime suivante : « Je ne changerais pas mes enfants pour rien au monde, mais je changerais le monde pour mes enfants ». ("Her political involvement is summarized by the maxim, 'I would never change my children for anything in the world, but I would change the world for my children.'")
3. [11]: "La jeune mère de famille veut une démocratie qui laisse plus de place aux jeunes. Elle se définit comme une citoyenne tannée qui veut que ça change." ("The young mother wants a democracy that makes room for youth. She defines herself as a [bold? literally "tanned"] citizen who wants things to change."
4. [12]: "Le Parti libre prône une démocratie directe et donne la priorités aux enfants, parce qu’au final, on fait ça pour eux. Je pense beaucoup à la prochaine génération." ("The Free Party preaches direct democracy and giving priority to children, because in the end, we do it for them. I think a lot about the next generation.")
5. [13]: This strange "interview", in which the party's leader rants and raves about the "acidification" of Saint-Sauveur, and actions he would take to "alkalize" the community, which for one is clearly not an interview (the supposed interviewer doesn't ask any questions) and is also not about the Free Party, it's about Leclerc's run for mayor of Saint-Sauveur in 2016.
These are all clearly press releases written by the Party, given to local papers for free publicity, which the local papers print with minimal review (see the second bullet under WP:NEWSORG, or churnalism more generally). Also notice how the candidate photos used in the article are the same ones that appear on the Party's website. They cannot be used to establish notability: they are not independent, and rather than evidence that the organization attracts any level of local or regional attention, they are evidence that the Party has a marketer on staff.

That all being said, the remaining few sources suggest an organization that may be worthy of inclusion in a List of minor political parties in Canada if such a list existed (there is such a list for Israel and I'm sure others must exist). But there is just not enough reliably-sourceable information on this party to warrant an entire article. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You highlighted the worst of these articles in the list above, but here are better local sources currently in the article. While they mostly rely on information given by the Free party or the candidates themselves, the majority of local sources in the article are not republished press releases, but firmly secondary sources. One of them was even republished by the Canadian Press. Mottezen (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What User:PEIsquirrel says is true of a lot of the reporting, some of it outright, some of it thinly veiled, but not of Journal de Quebec or of the various non-churnalism pieces like this https://montemiscouata.com/le-parti-libre-du-canada/ or this https://ici.radio-canada.ca/ohdio/premiere/emissions/bonjour-la-cote/segments/entrevue/370521/bianca-girard-candidate-parti-libre-canada-manicouagan-cote-nord or this 17-minute interview https://www.cfjufm.com/entrevue/elections-federales-2021-louis-berube or the Journal Acces pieces in Saint-Sauveur. Yes, the latter are about Leclerc's run for mayor for Parti libre Saint-Sauveur (also here https://www.journalacces.ca/michel-leclerc-presente-equipe/) Leclerc: "Mon ambition est de lancer le parti ici dans le village, puis de conquérir la province et enfin le fédéral, pour améliorer notre liberté." So it's the same party according to him. I wouldn't make the article because the party has such great coverage--it's pretty terrible--but I would have it because I don't think at that level of support it should be a red link, so we use what there is. There are ten parties with pages that got fewer votes in the 2021 election. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:PEIsquirrel tanné(e) means "fed up" in Qc French.

Interviews, in which somebody directly associated with the party is answering questions in the first person, are not support for notability — a source has to be third party analysis, written in the third person, to be legitimate support for notability. This is because notability is not a measure of the things the article says, it's a measure of the extent to which sources without a vested interest in promoting their own activities have analyzed and assessed the significance of the things it says. So notability is not "the party did stuff", it's "the party garnered a certain specific type, depth, volume and range of media coverage about the stuff it did". Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat It seems to me that Notability doesn't say it needs to be analytical. In reality the range of coverage that needs to be met is a judgment call around what constitutes 'significance.' The party gets voted for enough and covered in minor ways in third-party reliable sources (Radio-Canada, TVA, Journal du Quebec, small broadcasters and papers) enough for me to deem that it is significant, but not for you. Fair enough. But there isn't actually a specific type or depth or volume. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, when a political party runs in 60 ridings and gets tens of thousands of votes, I don’t care about whether it meets a SNG designed to exclude ad-like articles or not. Mottezen (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The thing you have to keep in mind is that sometimes sources that look like news coverage are actually still just thinly-veiled rewrites of the party's own self-published press releases about itself rather than coverage that actually establishes notability. Sources don't just have to verify facts, they have to establish the significance of said facts — for example, the mayor of a town or city is not automatically notable just because you can find one news article verifying her winning vote totals in the mayoral election, and instead establishing the notability of a mayor requires substantive coverage of specific things she did in the role. So notability is not "the facts can be verified", it is "a reason can be shown why the preservation of said facts in an encyclopedia for posterity is important". Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The result this party got in the election is reason enough to keep this encyclopedic article. Users have to keep in mind that this party did not even have a website one month ago. WP:NORG's otherwise justified emphasis on the quality of sources used in articles is too burdensome in this case, and can be ignored. Mottezen (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was indifferent on the first AfD, but there seems to be enough sources now. Plus, I think they did surprisingly well in the election for a fringe party (they won more votes than the Greens in a number of ridings), so I believe there is an encyclopedic need for this article, as I think people will be curious about what they're all about and why the did so well.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From what I can determine, the party won a significant percentage of the vote in several ridings, and especially in Quebec. Even if the party does not see success in the next election, it will remain historically relevant for the results of this election. The National Citizens Alliance has an extensive article of 25000 bytes which is 50 bytes for every vote it received.

~~Gardez~~. D'après ce que je peux déterminer, le parti a remporté un pourcentage important du vote dans plusieurs circonscriptions, et surtout au Québec. Même si le parti ne connaît pas de succès lors de la prochaine élection, il restera historiquement pertinent pour les résultats de cette élection. Alliance nationale des citoyens a un article étendu de 25000 octets, soit 50 octets pour chaque vote qu'elle a reçu. CactusRoy (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have undone the inappropriate early closure by a new editor. Please let the AfD run its normal 7-day course. Also, this is the English WP and comments should be in English, not in another language. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential discussion about the use of English in AfD debates.

Is the use of English-only a requirement? Seems an unnecessary restriction in the day of right-click, translate. Nfitz (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,I agree it's not necessary. I write first in French, Then I use Google Translate and put the English first. I leave the French, so you can determine my exact meaning.CactusRoy (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ENGLISHPLEASE. If you cannot write in English except by using online translation, then you should consider contributing to the French WP. Machine translations are not acceptable in article space and may confuse discussions on talk pages. You cannot assume that other editors will understand your original French to check your translation. Now please take this discussion elsewhere, this is not the place for it. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENGLISHPLEASE says "If using another language is unavoidable, try to provide a translation." User:CactusRoy's English translation was easy to understand, and it's reasonable to assume that an article about a Quebec matter will attract bilingual editors who can look at the French original if there's a difficulty with the translation. Your response might not be the best way of welcoming a new user. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering aside, it's obvious that the intent of ENGLISHPLEASE is that editors should use English. The exception is for cases where a source in another language is quoted directly, not for discussion at AfD by an editor who doesn't speak English. And, again, this is NOT the place to discuss this issue, this is an AfD, so I am going to collapse this irrelevant discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a distressing level of Anglo-chauvinism from User:Randykitty. According to your user page, you visited in Quebec. Then how can you visit here, and have such disrespect ? French is the language of my Ancestors. I will speak French when and where I should desire to do it. I used my civil right to free speech as a Quebecker to close the discussion. You are an Angloid, The fact that you feel a right to comment on this issue is a grave insult. Then you should be glad, you are not here in person with me. When Quebec is FREE and WHOLE we will not have this problem of stupid tabarnak anglo like you. CactusRoy (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For reference to the closer - and any Admin who want's to block (bloc?) User:CactusRoy for breaking the civility rules here, tabernaq anglo, is Quebec French and essentially means "fucking English people". Nfitz (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Your pun on Bloc Québécois is not funny. The oppression of Francophones in the false-state of 'Canada' is a serious issue and you cannot fix it by making jokes. Wikipedia is a jovial setting and not a courthouse, I reserve the right to use my native language in all its capacities. I am remaining civil with my respected Anglo opponent. And as you see, now I am replying in English only. CactusRoy (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a jovial setting, but you don't like my pun? That's no fun.

I'm the one defending your right to use French. Is the "na.." word still acceptable in Canadian English? On a more serious topic - I was surprised there was no French version of this article (there should be!) Nfitz (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are enough reliable sources cited to establish notability. Sources do not have to be exclusively in English. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another language tangent

Thanks for your support brother. Seems there are enough fools around here but you are not one of them. If it is Quebec party, then the source can be in English, or French, or in any other language as you have many enwiki articles with sources in foreign languages on foreign topics. CactusRoy (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody ever said that sources needed to be in English. Indeed, sources can be in any language, as long as they are reliable. It's the discussion here that should be understandable for every participant. And your previous remarks (in the collapsed section) were not exactly civil with on top of that a veiled threat of bodily harm. You got a "level 2" warning for that, but should realize that I could just as well could have taken you to WP:ANI and have you blocked for that. But it seems like you got the message and I look forward to see your contributions to Quebec-related topics (or indeed any topic of your liking). --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the comment was bilingual, anyone who reads either language could understand it. Puisque le commentaire était dans les deux langues, tous qui sont capables de lire l'une ou l'autre ont pu comprendre. 10:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

No, the French was given "so you can determine my exact meaning", with a machine-translation to English. And while machine translations are quite good nowadays, they are still far from perfect, so only if you understand French can you be certain what the comment exactly says. And can we now please stop commenting on this side issue and concentrate on the AfD discussion? --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this in only one language so you can "determine my exact meaning." You started the tangential discussion with a pointless rebuke in response to an unambiguous comment from a new Wikipedian on a language-use matter that was sure to be politically sensitive. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be enough independent significant RS to pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did look at this initially and think of closing, but given strong opposition expressed by a few, I felt better to !vote. The publicly expressed political interests of sizable segments of a population are inherently notable. To be crude this is quantitative: if we have political parties receiving more votes than the populations of some nation states (eg Monaco, Faroe, Marshall Islands) whose politicians are accorded presumed notability under NPOL we should resolve this inconsistency in favour of inclusion and not deletion of the similarly small. Located in context (COVID-19/surge in populist right politics/fringe anti-science/well-being politics) this is a political phenomenon attracting electoral support worthy of note. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have enough coverage + participation in election grants it some amount of historical significance. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:38, 30 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. Evidence has been presented, albeit late in the discussion, that this individual meets GNG, and as such arguments based on ANYBIO, and their rebuttals, are largely moot.

A few notes, since the notability of this entire group is being examined at the moment: there is no consensus on whether this individual is notable as a result of the award the Tuskegee airmen received. There is no consensus on whether being a member of this group is by itself sufficient, though the arguments in favor of this notion are stronger. Finally, it's very difficult to give any weight to arguments based on ATD and PRESERVE in these sorts of discussions, because those policies have nothing to say about the question of whether a standalone article should be kept or merged into a larger, and more obviously notable, topic. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Ross

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Yet another non-notable Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User (indeffed for copyvio). Sources are generally non reliable, passing mentions or generic Tuskegee Airmen filler. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here, just belonging to a notable unit/organisation does not confer notability on all its members, this is Easy Company all over again. Mztourist (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a good detailed profile of the subject here. The article is already quite well developed and sourced so the nomination is bizarre and fails policies such as WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not RS is why. Mztourist (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The CAF sources have been removed, they are not needed to establish notability. -- GreenC 04:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of reliable sources. And first commander of the squadron. Article and sourcing is not what it was when deletion was proposed. WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same generic Tuskegee airmen filler, nothing detailed about him. Mztourist (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Cooper, Charlie; Cooper, Ann (1996). Tuskegee's Heroes. United States: Zenith Imprint. p. 84. ISBN 9781610607605. ISBN 1610607600. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You think that is an RS? It also looks like this page is a copyvio from it Mztourist (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, shifting grounds. No reason to delete cited or exists. If there is a copy vio, that can be fixed, and is no reason to delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "That's some catch, that Catch-22!" Andrew🐉(talk) 14:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No shifting grounds at all. My nom made it clear that the page creator was indeffed for copyvio. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The CAF page for this pilot is a joke...poorly written and garbled in many places (the page for his wife is much better, but again you have the question of RS, and I've found errors in other CAF pages for Tuskegee pilots while cleaning copyvio in articles that were retained). And Together We Served is based on user submissions as well. Aside from namecheck in other sources (and oddly no one seems to be able to produce an RS for his DFC aside from the TWS site), there's a major lack of RS. Intothat darkness 22:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The CAF sources have been removed. Feel free to delete anything with "cite needed" not needed. -- GreenC 04:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's right there in the lead: Ross was the first African American combat fighter pilot in history. And also, per Andrew and 7&6=13 - wolf 20:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yet according to the cited source (which is questionable in terms of accuracy), Ross was one of five...not the first. And this must mean Eugene Bullard doesn't count. Intothat darkness 23:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your disparagement of the sources is unwarranted. In any event, Eugene Bullard served in the French military, not with the U.S. So he counts, but not in the way you propose. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the lead was misleading, which I have fixed, but even so the sources are unclear on this point. Intothat correctly notes that CAF is based on user submissions so it is not a reliable source. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my evaluation of CAF. I've found errors in their articles while cleaning up copyvios in this slew of articles. Intothat darkness 14:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem CAF is deleted. No longer needed. -- GreenC 04:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable and reliable secondary sources abound. Jamesallain85 (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only that pair of two-line paragraphs plus the city resolution seem to indicate any tangible notability, the rest is mostly just fluff. Some of those works which may look reliable from a glance (5 to 11) are only used in that off-topic digression on footnote A, and don't really cover the subject in any meaningful detail. There are also sources which are self-published (Gatling), and others which are not reliable (CAF and TWS, if the as-of-yet unrebutted statements above are correct). Source 1 may be adequate (7&6 thinks so, Mztourist thinks not) despite its short length, but overall that's really not much to go on. Avilich (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gatling has been removed. CAF has been removed. TWS removed (I think). Lots of new sources added. -- GreenC 04:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Avilich. The only claim to potential notability is that the subject was one of several African-American pilots to engage in arial combat for specifically the United States military for the first time. Relevant information from that engagement should be merged in to the larger Tuskegee Airmen article that already exists. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are new sources and new assertions of notability. -- GreenC 04:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His documented role as the first (or in a group of the first who achieved it simultaneously for accuracy) African American combat fighter pilot passes criteria 2 of WP:ANYBIO as we generally document first achievements among minority groups as significant historical achievements within wikipedia. Further, it's not clear to me that the delete votes have convincingly done a competent WP:BEFORE search or seriously read and analyzed the sources available on the subject that have been brought to their attention.4meter4 (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a distortion of facts. The delete voters are the only ones to have done a competent and serious Before – the others have simply thrown around bland statements like 'there are reliable sources' without any elaboration. Your argument is much closer to failing WP:1E than meeting Anybio#2, since the latter explicitly requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Avilich (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article as it now stands demonstrates he passes WP:GNG. And his historic trailblazing place in history and personal accomplishments belie your conclusion. WP:Not paper; WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ty for proving my point – don't feel shy to point specifically at what makes him notable, as currently most of the article is just filler content covering his graduation, family and associates. And no making up bogus sources, as you did here. See also WP:DON'T PRESERVE. Avilich (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I just had to remove a source that didn't contain any content the link claimed it did (confirmation of Ross' appointment as a squadron commander...the link was to a gallery page containing one of the same photos that appears on the CAF page for Ross with the same caption), I still have doubts about the sourcing of this article (and others like it). I'd say let CAF host poorly-researched biographies. Intothat darkness 22:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mac Ross is in dozens or hundreds of books, should anyone want to look for significant coverage not already included. -- GreenC 21:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you're not including the Anime results in that search as part of those "dozens or hundreds of books"? Or the Barbie one? Or the hundreds of simple mentions in photo captions or class rosters (many of which are contemporary and thus possibly primary sources)? And let's not forget the Book of Irish Names. Someone's name in a photo caption does not automatically equal notability, and poor sourcing (like the cite I removed) doesn't add anything to the article. Intothat darkness 21:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the dozens/hundreds of books about the Mac Ross, the topic of this AfD, which is pretty obvious. This comment was made in good faith to help readers find reliable sources. I've already found and added 2 more to the article taken from that list. Just as Mac Ross felt that he was on trial every time he flew, anyone voting keep or adding sources can expect resistance at every turn ("Or the Barbie one" sigh). -- GreenC 22:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing Keep voters to Ross strikes me as more than slightly dramatic and likely in bad taste. The basic sourcing of the article remains poor, and the additions don't really speak to his basic notability. As a group, the Tuskegee Airmen are notable. Individually, it varies greatly just like members of any famous or notable military unit. Ross didn't survive the war and go on to higher rank in the Air Force (like other Tuskegee pilots), his DFC isn't sourced anywhere other than Together We Served (and it doesn't appear on their current listing for him) and didn't achieve ace status (which seems to confer automatic notability in AfD). Intothat darkness 22:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tuskegee airmen are notable based on their wartime contribution and their historic integration of the U.S. Army Air Corps. Tuskegee airmen are also inherently notable based on their collective award The Congressional Gold Medal awarded in 2007. At the minimum we have a an easy pass of WP:ANYBIO. I think the gold medal should end any debate about notability and I have added it to the article with references showing the congressional act and an article which states that the Tuskegee Airmen were posthumously awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. Lightburst (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary source you added does not even mention the subject of the nomination. Avilich (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary source mentions the posthumous award. The Tuskegee Airmen are notable. Lightburst (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An award granted to a group doesn't establish the notability of each individual of that group (especially if it's large), only to the group itself, which already has an article. Avilich (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By that reasoning each of the up to 20,000 Chinese-American servicemen and 200,000 members of the Civil Air Patrol who served during WWII are also deserving of an article, as do each of the 20,000+ Montford Point Marines who similarly integrated the Marine Corps. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not all 1000, but the first 5 to graduate is a significant stand out from peers. Others were dropped from that first class. It was an historic accomplishment. The article says what a close-run thing it was, how Ross feared being accused of crashing a plane during training and giving critics ammo to say blacks can't fly. They flew under extreme pressure to perform and not make a mistake. Without his leadership the whole program could have been canceled, there were people willing to do so. -- GreenC 03:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to provide RS about Ross to substantiate a claim that "the first 5 to graduate is a significant stand out from peers". I agree with Avilich and GPL93, the arguments by Lightburst and GreenC are essentially that just being a Tuskegee Airmen establishes notability but that is wrong per WP:NOTINHERITED. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here: "Lieutenants Lemuel Custis, Charles DeBow, George Roberts, and Mac Ross were the first four to graduate, in March of 1942, and drew the most sustained attention from the press and the black community as a result."[14] -- GreenC 04:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true then where is it? Thanks for cn tagging the page showing its many deficiencies. Mztourist (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given age, probably not online. I might delete all those sentences, they are mostly not important anyway, but will wait to see what others do with it first. -- GreenC 05:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93 were the 20,000 you mention awarded the Congressional Gold Medal? Lightburst (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: If you are alive when awarded, any living member of the unit/group are eligible to receive one. For instance, when the Borinqueneers Congressional Gold Medal was issued, you were sent medal as long as you could prove that you served in the 65th Infantry Regiment during the Korean War. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So 20,000 was hyperbole? In the case of the Tuskegee Airmen they all awarded even posthumously. In addition they broke the color barrier in the US Army Air Force. Undoubtedly a more significant contribution based on the US History of black white relations. And perhps some of the mentioned deserve articles. We should not penalize one because the other is absent. Cheers Lightburst (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: My apologies as I thought you were talking about receiving a physical copy of the medal. It is technically awarded to all members of the honored group, alive and deceased. So yes, all 20,000 people were honored. Congress is awarding a blanket recognition to the contributions of a group of people when they do this unless they are conferring the medal to specific individuals. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. Tuskegee Airmen, especially some of the first, are going to be of historical and social interest, notable by virtue of their contribution to civil rights, military treatment of African Americans, and actual military action. It's worth pointing out, I think, that until WWII (and even thereafter) military action involving African Americans (including the Civil War) was often about them, rather than by them. That is, fighting over their rights, enforcing oppression, or responding to civil rights action. The Tuskegee Airmen represent one of the first instances of African Americans in the military, and even then they faced significant barriers and objections. Does keeping this article mean we "risk" having to cover some other Tuskegee Airmen? God, I hope so. We cover a great many people less worthy of note (who have made a considerably less meaningful contribution to their field) and I'm fine with covering a few more of these guys. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No-one disputes that the Tuskegee Airmen as a group are notable, the question is is Mac Ross personally notable? Which of the 3 heads of ANYBIO do you think he satisfies? Mztourist (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2, arguably 1 too. That others have made the same contribution doesn't diminish Ross' contribution. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 is essentially the matter being debated here. He certainly doesn't satisfy #1 as he didn't receive any such individual award. Mztourist (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Stalwart111Genius level 100. Thank you.Lightburst (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mztourist, sure, and I think he passes #2. But on #1, WP:ANYBIO simply says, "well-known and significant award or honor"; it does not say the award or honour needs to have been an individual one. I agree that an individual award would put it beyond doubt, but just like winning a gold medal as part of a relay team, or winning a significant industry award as part of a team... St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

#1 of ANYBIO says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" that means an individual award, not being part of a group that received an award, otherwise every member of every group that recieved a well-known and significant award or honor would qualify, which is not the intention. Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that if it meant that, it would say that. It doesn't though. But yes, every member of a medal-winning sporting team is considered notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. On that logic all 1074 Women Airforce Service Pilots, all Montford Point Marines, all 2996 9/11 victims, all 200,000+ Civil Air Patrol members etc. are individually notable. Mztourist (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong? Which part of the guideline did I quote incorrectly? That you would like for it to be interpreted that way doesn't change the wording of that guideline. But yes, by that logic, yes they would. It is up to us to apply common sense. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, completely wrong. The individual needs to receive the award not a group. #1 of ANYBIO states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" if it meant a group then to quote you "if it meant that, it would say that".Mztourist (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you can interpret it that way, but that's not what it says. At all. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely what it says, multiple other users also agree with me on this point. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like many guidelines and policies it is worded intentionally open-ended to leave room for specific cases to go one way or another depending on consensus discussions. No closer will say Stalwart is absolutely wrong, they will note it is a minority opinion in the AfD. Debates over group awards and ANYBIO go back since the start. For example a physics team share a Nobel or 5 people share a major award - that's why ANYBIO doesn't specifically exclude group awards, there are cases people think are OK. Nor does it specify a cut-off number for group size, that's up to consensus. Stalwart's opinion is valid, but it is minority in this AfD. -- GreenC 04:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All true, though I did say (at the start of this sub-thread) that is was "arguable" that he "also" met #1 of WP:ANYBIO, having already met #2. There is no specification in that guideline that the award should be individual, though I agree that's the sensible and common sense standard to apply in most cases. In this case, it's moot anyway. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To add to what's already there, here are a couple newspapers.com clips: Airmen of Steel, Philatelic room to honor Tuskegee unit flier, ~~Black History Month: Mac Ross~~, and Walk of Fame in Dayton Daily News, Dayton Negro First to Join Caterpillars in The Journal Herald (these articles span about 70 years). It's a problem when local coverage is all we have, but this supplements the other sources and claims to notability with several articles specifically about the subject in these reliable, albeit local papers. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: thank you, I've incorporated facts from three of these articles. The Black history Month is a reprint of Airmen of Steel. -- GreenC 17:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2005/02/09/house-section/article/H422-2 The official government website that keeps track of such things says he was one of the "original five Tuskegee Airmen". Dream Focus 21:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Congressional Record keeps track of things read into the record in Congress. As such it's arguably a primary source, and subject to bias as well. It doesn't keep track of who was part of the "original five Tuskegee Airmen", it records that someone said he was. Intothat darkness 23:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I sincerely believe there is enough coverage in reliable, independent sources to warrant notability, though perhaps the coverage is less concentrated and more scattered across RS than other WP:GNG cases. I think things like the Dayton Daily News, The Journal Herald, and the university sites are what we should be leaning into. That said, the article is an absolute mess and all the memorial/blog websites out to be purged (Together We Served, etc.). The Francis 2008 citation that uses 9 different pages is absolutely garbage for WP:VERIFY purposes in that format and the actual pages that support the given information need to be narrowed down. Also note that one can always create a list of Tuskegee airmen, I don't think each one is inherently individually notable, but as a group they are. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have never disputed that the Tuskegee Airmen as a group are notable. There is already List of Tuskegee Airmen and List of Tuskegee Airmen Cadet Pilot Graduation Classes. Mztourist (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting that, at any rate good to know there is a list article where the less notable ones can be merged. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right there's no question of notability. I've tried to address some of your points by removing some sources and making verification easier. The TWS source remains but now tagged ^{[better source needed]} and collapsed into a single cite in one isolated section. I think the most valuable thing of this Wikipedia article from a historical perspective is to get the facts of his death in one place - I doubt the PR agent from the US Post Office was aware of this story or wanted to advertise it when they honored him as a role model for children, though plausible deniability remains. Seems like Col. Davis was trying to cover it up to cover any blame, we'll never know the truth. -- GreenC 19:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer a better source for the DFC, honestly. It's odd it's not reported anyplace else (at least someplace that's RS). And I'd still direct interested people to the link in my comment below. Putting the effort in BEFORE these articles reach AfD seems a better use of time, even if it's not seen as glamorous or attention-getting. It also cuts down on drama and poor (frankly offensive) comparisons like the one made earlier in this discussion. Intothat darkness 23:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd also point interested parties here. Still lots of work to do, and if you feel strongly about these articles it's a great place to start. Intothat darkness 23:16, 23 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. There seems to be general agreement that the title/topic are encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion, even though the list itself needs work. Randykitty (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international common standards

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

There's no clear definition of what does or doesn't belong on this list. It's just a loose collection of some standard-like topics; just a smattering from several different categories. It doesn't seem fixable. I don't think there's anything you could develop this article into that doesn't already exist as an article. Ike9898 (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ike9898 (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have edited the lead-in to more clearly describe what the list is about and what should or shouldn’t be included on the list. I originally created the list because there wasn’t a list which referenced similar standards which can relate to one another, even though the categories of standards included is broad. I understand that the list may seem a loose collection of different categories, I do think this list is of value, useful for education about different standards and for linked reference purposes. RW Marloe (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International standards are obviously notable and we don't seem to have any other equivalent list. The only issue seems to be the word "common" in the title, which seems unnecessary. But tinkering with the title would be done by a move, not by deletion. See WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate and random collection here, seemingly original research of various concepts lumped together. Not sure what makes amino acid codes any more "international" or a "standard" than any other scientific notation, or why the recycling symbol, which is not actually internationally standardized ("countless variants of it exist worldwide"), is a standard any more than countless other widely recognized symbols. Traffic lights are not international standards (List of variations in traffic light signalling and operation), nor is the broad topic of musical notation. Tally marks are done differently all over and are by no means a "standard"! The word "common" is not the only issue, and even without these examples this is absurdly vague and goes beyond just needing clean up and should not be kept in mainspace at the least. Reywas92^Talk 03:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Just the list of International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards is broken down into at least 25 articles which just list the titles of the standards. This is international standards from just one international standards body. The category Lists of standards contains others, many of which are international. A list of all international standards would be duplicative and better addressed using categories. Ike9898 (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN explains that categories are not superior to lists and WP:NOTDUPE states that "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Andrew🐉(talk) 19:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
_{Your nomination means it is assumed you support deletion. No need to also !vote.} St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The title of the article is great but the content is random and difficult to understand or navigate. Currently, only technical standards are listed, but basically, anything can be put in this list. I think it should be significantly improved by recategorizing the content and specifying what this article includes at the lead section. nirmal (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TNT. This article is a decent concept but in its current state is useless, unsalvageable garbage that readers shouldn’t be subjected to. Dronebogus (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid navigational list. Dream Focus 13:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Valid navigational list.4meter4 (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A suitable list of national commons. I am against its deletion. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. if it neeeds adjustment, that can be done by consesus on the talk p. . This is a good start. DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is a list article, so if the title is great, that means it's a valid topic for a list, and deletion is not necessary (although rewriting may be). This is different from, say, List of politicians with stupid haircuts or List of rich people, which would be bad topics for lists no matter how well they were written (and are rightfully redlinked). jp×g 04:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Frivolous request. OP indeffed for disruption. El_C 16:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Federated States of Micronesia at the 2008 Summer Olympics

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

Just completely worthless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romonger (talk • contribs) 13:20, 20 September 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 September 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - nominator offers no valid reasoning for deletion and this is not a close call in terms of notability. Nations competing at the Olympics are presumed notable per WP:NOLYMPICS. As a GA, the article is pretty fleshed out in terms of coverage and backed up by solid references. Aranya (talk) 16:33, 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 no consensus. The result was no consensus. A number of editors have provided more sources. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green Meadow, Delaware

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

Deprodded. This really seems like a run-of-the-mill subdivision, I'm not finding significant coverage sufficient to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG aside from a community profile and an article that mentions Joe Biden lived there in 1964. –dlthewave ☎ 21:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Delaware Place Names lists it as a "suburban development"; no real claim to notability as such. Mangoe (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know what is considered SIGCOV for communities so I'll just list what I've found related to it and let someone else analyze it: this from The News Journal, this, also from The News Journal, this from Journal–Every Evening, this from The Morning News, this from Journal–Every Evening, this from Journal–Every Evening, and this from Journal–Every Evening. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, does the amount of houses and/or population matter? Because there are at least 80 homes (and a bunch more if you include the bordering neighborhood, which Google Maps considers part). And, if Joe Biden's house, which is located down the street from it, was also considered part, there would be 100s of houses included in this development. I'm leaning towards Keep because three sources (this from The News Journal, this from Journal–Every Evening, and this from The Journal–Every Evening) appear significant enough for me. I might expand this article soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the bordering neighborhood appears to be the just-as-generic and non-notable Shipley Heights, Delaware or Lynnfield, Delaware. Reywas92^Talk 01:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~I've significantly expanded the article in this edit, adding nine references. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Ridiculous. It's not notable to just paste in the text of advertisements and pretend it's encyclopedic material. Nor it is notable encylopedic content to copy a testimony about one time the creek got high. Just fluff about a run-of-the-mill development. Reywas92^Talk 17:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The community was founded in 1954, and consisted of 47 "ranch-type houses," air conditioned by York Refrigeration & Condition" Sheesh, talk about pointless ref-bomb type junk details. Sure, back in 1954 this ad thought that relevant to inform potential homebuyers, but that's not independent coverage for notability, due weight, or encyclopedic relevance. Do we need to include from this advertorial that the washer and dryer came from Kelvinator and the surfaces are Formica? Reywas92^Talk 18:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like the sources provided above meet GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources above [15],[16], [17] are all literally advertisements and a couple others are like advertorials saying what's for sale. The last one from The News Journal is their then-weekly "Community Profile", similar to these on Melanie Woods, Charter Oaks, Cobblestones, Fairfield, etc. Let's not waste time on articles on such generic subdivisions/housing developments like the one I grew up in. Reywas92^Talk 01:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And since the News-Journal is the local Wilmington newspaper, there's almost no way that a story about a local neighborhood is enough to make that place notable; it ordinarily would take substantial coverage from outside the area. Mangoe (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) is failed proposal. Wikipedia:AUD is the guideline. Or is the suggestion that this "local neighborhood" be redirected to Wilmington? Djflem (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having compared the two, I do not see how this place passes either standard. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to pass the failed proposal (which was essentially being suggested above). Extensive regional sources been provided provided, as per the guideline. Djflem (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Advertising sources have mostly been removed, though considering that they are archival & certainly no longer promotional they could be very useful for Wikipedia:Verifiability of information, if not notability, but there are others which satisfactorily establish that. Djflem (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG.Djflem (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that it does. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it does meet GNG with SIGCOV from the Journal–Every Evening (1, 2), The Morning News (1), and The News Journal (1). Some other coverage includes this, this, this, and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These epitomize local coverage of a suburban development. Look, the Morning News, and Evening Journal, and the News-Journal are all the same newspaper, published by the same company on the same presses at least as far back as I can remember in the 1970s. It's just the main Wilmington paper, and this is typical of local coverage in a metropolitan area. It doesn't satisfy GNG because it is completely routine. Mangoe (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not the same. The Journal–Every Evening (formed by a merger of The Evening Journal and Every Evening) merged with The Morning News in the '60s or '70s, becoming The News Journal. Until then they were separate papers. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. When I lived in the area in the mid 1970s, the Morning News and Evening Journal were published as separate editions, in the same typeface and all, by the same publisher. Acto our own article, the "merger" into a single edition wasn't accomplished until it was bought up by Gannett in 1989, but even before that they were simply morning and evening editions from the same publisher. In any case, the point remains: this is as local as coverage gets, and is typical of said coverage of city suburbs. Mangoe (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I may be incorrect, but was it the same in the 1950s? The coverage I call significant, besides the 1993 article by The News Journal, was published between 1954 and 1958. Also, per Djflem, if the coverage is local it doesn't matter—its still SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the inclusion of lots of reliable third-party sources that demonstrate notability. There has been a quite significant expansion since nomination (compare before and after). There seems to be a fierce edit war on the article between participants in this AfD (oscillating between a long version and a short version), but even the short version easily clears GNG. jp×g 22:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a tiny housing development with less than 70 homes, no notability, no form of self governance. No reason it should be here. Superman7515 (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Incorrect—there are between 80 and 120 homes in the development. 2. Incorrect—I have presented extensive regional sources, establishing notability IMO. 3. Correct, but it doesn't matter whether or not it governs itself. 4. Incorrect—If a topic meets GNG it should be here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:04, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aishwarya Raj Bhakuni

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

Only small and minor roles done by the actor. Not enough coverage for WP:GNG Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The actress is a known face in TV industry and commands fair fan following. The article caters to those people who admire the actress as a one stop source of relevant information about her. Information is also supported by verifiable links. Referred sources have significant coverage of the actress and are reliable, hence the deletion should not be proceeded and the notability tag should also be taken off, Dumbo shaan (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The actress has played lead role in Gupta Brothers which was a popular show on Star Bharat and she is the lead of the show Mauka E Vardaat as permanent cop through out the show. She is the lead in telugu film Director , she is the lead in telugu film Hundred Crore, she has played a prominent role in Tenali Rama and like this many other shows she has done for Television. All the necessary links to prove the fact are available on internet and can be provided to prove the fact. Caad001 (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Not enough coverage for WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Apart from IWMBuzz and TellyChakkar (both advertising and marketing agencies) and a Brand Post on Hindustan Times couldn’t find much. Just a passing mention in a Times of India article. defcon5 (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recreated the page of Aishwarya Raj Bhakuni as there are enough authentic sources available which have sole coverage of the actress for her role in the recent movie of YRF Films 'Samrat Prithviraj' You can simply google and see a number of results from leading media houses of India such as Times of India, Ahmedabad Mirror, Dainik Bhaskar and so on. The subject in the article has now commanded sufficient popularity as evident from the media coverage. The recently created page has been moved to draftspace. Please restore it. Dumbo shaan (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of playing significant roles to meet WP:NACTOR (Eg. hardly stands out among tens of other actors who appeared in Tenali Rama (TV series)). Coverage is not sufficient to pass GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recreated the page of Aishwarya Raj Bhakuni as there are enough authentic sources available which have sole coverage of the actress for her role in the recent movie of YRF Films 'Samrat Prithviraj' You can simply google and see a number of results from leading media houses of India such as Times of India, Ahmedabad Mirror, Dainik Bhaskar and so on. The subject in the article has now commanded sufficient popularity as evident from the media coverage. The recently created page has been moved to draftspace. Please restore it. Dumbo shaan (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recreated the page of Aishwarya Raj Bhakuni as there are enough authentic sources available which have sole coverage of the actress for her role in the recent movie of YRF Films 'Samrat Prithviraj' You can simply google and see a number of results from leading media houses of India such as Times of India, Ahmedabad Mirror, Dainik Bhaskar and so on. The subject in the article has now commanded sufficient popularity as evident from the media coverage. The recently created page has been moved to draftspace. Please restore it. Dumbo shaan (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2022 (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 Xenia motif. Sandstein 11:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xenia epigram

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Searching Google Scholar and Books, I find no reliable sources discussing "xenia epigrams" as a concept. The only reference in the article is to a book by a minor 19th century poet who used "xenia" as a heading in one of his poetry books; the fact that one author has grouped some poems under the heading "xenia" no more makes "xenia epigrams" a notable genre than the fact that the same author grouped some poems under the heading "triflings" makes "trifling poems" a notable genre. His using the term once does not significant coverage make. Even assuming that "xenia epigrams" is used in the sense given (which I can find little evidence for!), the fact that no sources discuss it means that this can be nothing more than a dictionary entry. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE to Xenia motif. Martial's Xenia are the source of the epigrams, but I agree that they don't need a separate article. --Macrakis (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE to Xenia motif.4meter4 (talk) 20:20, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universidade da luta

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

I'm not seeing how this gym fits the notability requirement. The only notable bit about this gym is that the Rua brothers founded it. There is no references or in depth information about the gym itself. I'm not able to find any in depth articles about it. Per sherdog, the gym hasn't really produced any notable fighters apart from the founders themselves. The official site link doesn't work anymore and their social media accounts haven't been active for years. Just a local gym at best so I don't think it warrants its own wiki page. Imcdc (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the reference links in the article seem to work and my own search found no significant independent coverage of the gym. The only events I can find concerning the gym are two amateur events in 2010. The most notable thing about the gym are its founders, and the notability of organizations can't be inherited from its founders. Papaursa (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:22, 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 delete. Sandstein 19:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q-Bus card list

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

WP:NOTDIR & WP:NOTEVERYTHING - just because we have a single reference (the company's official handbook) doesn't mean that we have to replicate every single entry in the contents section. This list of obsolete 1970s and 1980s computer interface and memory cards adds zero value to Wikipedia and is already summarised to good effect in the parent article Q-Bus. If anything, the sentence there that states "A wide range of interface cards are available for the Q-Bus." could be expanded with a short list grouping the different types of interface. It could also be that this list, being lifted from the source, is copyvio if the descriptions in the function column are lifted word for word - as some seem to be. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd separated it from the parent page in question as IMHO the list was overly long and distracting; deleting this page would therefore be an overall removal of information that existed prior to the page's creation, which isn't to say it shouldn't be done but that some caution should be exercised if that wasn't the intended result. The alternative is to re-merge it back into the Q-Bus page but that would simply take us back to where we started (unless the list can be collapsed; I don't know enough about the finer points of Wiki code to know if that's possible nor how it would be accomplished).

I also dunno if I'm supposed to write "disagree" or "oppose" or something like that in a fancy colour!

--Vometia (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further edit: I'd also remark that "zero value" is rather PoV. Old systems, their research and restoration are seeing a lot of popularity so the information is valuable to those people and its removal therefore unhelpful: what is Wikipedia's value if not to people who are searching for that information? --Vometia (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at other legacy (or even current) bus systems, e.g. VME, ATA, SBUS, UNIBUS, I do not see any other lists of cards. There is a perfectly good and accessible list of Q-BUS cards in the single reference on the article Digital Microcomputer Products Handbook 1985. I don't see why that guide needs to be replicated as a Wikipedia article. Whether the list is here or back in the original article doesn't get around the fact it is way more detail than is necessary. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on one's definition of "necessary"; trouble is, it's a rather subjective measure. tbh I don't have a lot invested either way and as mentioned previously, the article's creation was specifically to remove clutter from the parent. But I tend to fall on the side of being loath to nuke potentially useful information. I guess I disagree with the deletionist stance as the dividing line between useful/useless is an absolute judgement based on an arbitrary cut-off point of the particular deletionist's own devising. Anyway, that's probably a discussion for elsewhere (and another one I'm not all that invested in), my point is that I don't see what is gained by deleting it but I see potential problems with doing so. --Vometia (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep - as above. Disagree with rationale to delete; alternative is to re-merge back into parent article but I don't favour that as a solution as I split this overly-long section to shorten article to reasonable length. --Vometia (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not appropriate for wikipedia. The list can be referenced in the main article. --Bduke (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I moved it from the main article because I figured it was clutter (i.e. unduly verbose compared to rest of article, not irrelevant). While I don't really see what is gained by re-merging it I have no especially strong objection and it would be preferable to simply deleting it. --Vometia (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to add: I would re-merge it back myself if I could figure out how to get mw-collapsed to work. Which I can't, so if anybody wants to clue me in... --Vometia (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's just no reason to have this. It's not encyclopedic content, it's just a parts catalog. PianoDan (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR & WP:NOTEVERYTHING.4meter4 (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated above. Wikipedia isn't a regurgitation of what is in effect a glorified parts catalog. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:24, 30 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.

Well, thanks to all the people who said "delete" and declined to offer advice when asked; and then deleted it without notifying me. Cheers for (yet another) example of Wikipedia's hostility. Every time I edit anything here it doesn't take long before I'm reminded of why I mostly stopped doing so years back. --Vometia (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 14:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dongbu District, Zhongshan

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

It seems that no reliable source could prove that there is such a district with administrative nature exist in Zhongshan, Guangdong, China. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND DreamerBlue (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. DreamerBlue (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete not a legal division and also not notable as a region either Gorden 2211 (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, like the other nonexistent "districts" of Zhongshan. It seems the others have been deleted already. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:12, 25 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 23:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford International School, Dhaka

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

Unreliable and primary source. No notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (schools) guideline. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 14:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 14:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Schools are not normally notable and this one is not an exception.--Bduke (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could someone please search for Bengali-language references that could be added to this article? Searching for references in the appropriate language is an important part of WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG.4meter4 (talk) 20:29, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Muijul Hoque Azad

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

Self-promotional, no indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. Sources given in article do not mention him and there is no evidence he is in any of the films listed in the article. ... discospinster _talk 14:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I heavily agree. It also lists his birth as being in 2005, yet appearing in movies as early as 1998. At least one of those facts are a lie. EytanMelech (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It also seems as if he is the one who wrote his own article, according to the username of the editor who created and wrote the majority of it. This is also a conflict of interest. EytanMelech (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete - Clearly spam -—MdsShakil (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Article is written like a promotional piece. Fails WP:GNG and was likely writted as a conflict of interest as previously mentioned. Winissium (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:41, 25 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 Gopher (protocol)#Server software. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PyGopherd

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

Appears to fail the notability, reliable sources and verifiability tests. Nothing suggests it introduced any breakthrough technology or in any way contribute to the development of the gopher protocol or gopherspace, all that we can see is that it is another run-of-the-mill gopher server. The only secondary source mentions it in passing, merely confirming its existence. Good faith search failed to find any other references. The article merely repeats the information already present in gopher (protocol) § Server software. The article was nominated for proposed deletion but the nomination was contested.

Thank you. 84.69.182.103 (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support deleting the PyGopherd article. As mentioned it appears to lack notability, as well as the other mentioned issues. zcrayfish (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect to gopher (protocol) § Server software. This article regularly gets up to 5 views a day, perhaps we should redirect it to the main Gopher article for user convenience. Anton.bersh (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to gopher (protocol) § Server software. Basic facts are verifiable and this is a plausible search term. Redirect is an obvious alternative to deletion, and per our policy WP:ATD, for verifiable material, such alternatives are preferred over deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 14:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT~~ redirect sounds reasonable, I'm OK with it. 84.69.182.103 (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Simple redirects usually blank the content of the article page. If you meant "delete and then create a redirect", that is usually only done in cases where there is harmful material, such as copyright violations or BLP violations. Unless I am missing a such a problem, I don't think that is the case here, so a simple redirect should suffice. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right, I misunderstood the idea. Obviously, no ~~blanking~~ permanent hiding of the existing content is necessary. 84.69.182.103 (talk) 11:32, 24 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 14:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Tisch

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

Not clear how this person passes WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE Theroadislong (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Even his own websites, https://christophtisch.com and https://aandct.com/ are displaying messages like "back soon" and "working on an update". Vexations (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SPA. An article was written by the same author, who uploaded the picture. Lack of reliable sources, no mention in German wikipedia, which casts a doubt if the subject is even locally notable--SalomonSalmon (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One link and it goes to Tisch's company WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:55, 25 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. Geschichte (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drop B tuning

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

This article has existed for 8 years but there are barely any sources, and even with the sources found, it's too short for a full list article. All sourced drop B bands have been moved to D♭ tuning article because of its relation, similar to drop B with the only difference being the low string. With that, I say it's time for the Drop B tuning article to be gone for good. SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 12:35, 22 September 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 September 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to List of guitar tunings#Dropped, where this is currently mentioned, albeit with no sources. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I like that suggestion, filelakeshoe. If we don't hear from anyone else for about a week, we can close this AfD and do the redirect once and for all....SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like no one objects, so I've merged the referenced bits of Drop B tuning (i.e. the list of artists) into List of guitar tunings. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:40, 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 keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh of Austrasia

Hugh of Austrasia Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Hughes d'Austrasia Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Hughes d'Austrasie Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Chuc Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Chucus Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Chugus Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I believe that this article should be deleted due to the nature of this article being sourced by nothing but unsourced genealogical entries on findagrave. In fact, if you search on Google for Hugh of Austrasia, all of the first page is nothing but unsourced genealogical sources, or the Wikipedia article.

I have actually heard of Hugh before, while doing genealogical research. I came across it on a very poorly sourced megatree and I have a feeling that either, this dude isn't real, or he is unverifiable.

Setting a Google search parameter for anytime before Dec 31 of 2015, shows no results for me on Hugh whatsoever, except for a WordPress, and a few other sources that don't provide any sources, and seem to be merely lists or previously stated genealogical sites. I think that someone needs to show me a scholarly article or source mentioning Hugh, or else this article should be deleted, perhaps along with some other Austrasian Kings.

EytanMelech (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See the text and the references in the corresponding article in the French Wikipedia, fr:Hugues (maire du palais) Automatically notable as either the equivalent of a cabinet minister or as a de facto ruler of Austrasia. I added {{Find sources}} for different versions of his name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The French article includes as references two editions of a book on the ancestors of Charlemagne. I have added both to the English article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's nice to finally have a source for the article. EytanMelech (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. The article has been expanded He was a court minister of the absolute monarchy. Automatically notable and passes WP:NPOL. VocalIndia (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not crazy about the sources available so far, but after reading about his role I feel it is worth keeping. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that the new additions and sourcing makes it a viable article. EytanMelech (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mayor of the Palace was an exceptionally important post, so I think keeping per WP:COMMONSENSE is called for even though the sources are not wonderful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 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 delete. ✗plicit 13:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anmol Joon

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

This was tagged for A7 which I cautiously declined, but I'm not sure whether the subject is really notable. A lot of the references in the article, while they are about him, read like press releases and may not qualify as WP:RS. I don't know enough about Badminton to know whether the "all India ranking tournament" qualifies him for the criteria at WP:NBAD. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the references looks like press release with sponsor tag. Fails WP:GNG. Trakinwiki (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nomination. Jiggyziz^Talk✍️ 12:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check it now Sir, please check article now, had removed article which were looks paid/disclaimered. Bihariboy Rahul (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. No indication of notability. References are only just passing mentions or press releases/paid releases. DMySon (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written for promotional purposes only. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article should be deleted and page should be protected so they can't make again in main space this article is have promotional purposes only. They have misleading information of entrepreneurship and sport person both different they misusing reference of other person this not Wikipedia reliable content. toiwriter (talk)
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:47, 25 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. Consensus is that additional sources are not sufficient evidence of notability. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Du Secondary School

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

The article has been left unreferenced and as a stub for 11 years, the only information on the article has been the school address which clearly fails notability even for high schools. There are many schools in Vietnam with the same name, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of information available about this specific school. If worth-mentioning, the article is also an orphan. RandomEditorAAA (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. @RandomEditorAAA:, @Oaktree b:. I added some newspaper references. I think notability is now clear. Sometimes Google searches for school articles can be more productive if you include both the school name and the street name where it is located, especially when several schools have the same name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Eastmain for the source finding, however still when I searched up "Nguyễn Du Secondary School 139 Nguyen Du Street" and similar search terms, I get sites that are basically mirrors of this article, or sites that copy the information of this article. I thought I found another name for it called "Nguyễn Du Gifted High School" but from what I found searching that up, they seem different. From the news search, I only found minor mentions such as this, I think same applies with the sources you gave. If more sources are found that give more than a small mention, then I think that this article might be notable. Perhaps I am just bad at source finding. Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Schools are not normally notable and this one is not an exception.--Bduke (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources provided by Eastmain constitute significant coverage as the stories are trivial WP:ROUTINE local news pieces per WP:NOTNEWS. One article is about 9th grade exam procedure changes during COVID and the other is about a changed lunch schedule. The other is the school's website. This is not significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG.4meter4 (talk) 20:38, 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 keep. The article has been sourced, providing evidence of notability. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edenridge, Delaware

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

Subdivision fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG due to lack of significant independent coverage; there's little potential for expansion beyond the current paragraph. Most sources are either self-sourced to the developer or just passing mentions, routine coverage etc. –dlthewave ☎ 01:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill subdivision does not stand out for notability. Reywas92^Talk 13:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG and GEOLAQND. The article is pretty well sourced, and I was also able to find [18] [19] [20] [21]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily satisfies GNG (and thus, GEOLAND).(Version 09/04<>09/16 show expansion w/ additional explanation and references, which provide even more material than currently included in article.) Djflem (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the initial two-sentence stub which was PRODded is quite different from the current article. There are fourteen references, which seem to put this smartly past GNG (and then some). jp×g 22:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Yet another unremarkable development: what little claim to notability there is in the article is for the foundation/developer, not the neighborhood. The rest is routine local coverage found about every suburban neighborhood. Mangoe (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EDDY.4meter4 (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eddy. Passes WP:NGEO. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Eddy. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:56, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaffarabadmachli

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

The lede describes this fossil fish species as "a dubious species for the dubious genus [...] Muzaffarabadmachli". Single ref, link given goes to the wrong publication - the correct one (acc. to PBDB) appears to be something I cannot even link to due to blacklisting;^[1] that publisher is Scientific Research Publishing, a house of ill repute. No other hits in the literature except for original description. - As recently discussed, this author has an uncertain reputation; taking that into account and considering the only source is a predatory journal, I don't believe we should keep this taxon article. Redirecting to the fish equivalent of List of informally named dinosaurs may be an option, but I don't think we have that. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Malkani, M. S. (2019). "Recently discovered basilosaurid, baluchithere rhinoceros, horses, sea cow, proboscidean, eucrocodile, pterosaurs, plesiosaur, fishes, invertebrates and wood fossils, tracks and trackways of dinosaurs from Pakistan; comparison of recognized four titanosaur taxa of Indo-Pakistan with Madagascar". Open Journal of Geology. 9 (12): 919–955.

Delete. Only appears in a predatory Scientific Research Publishing publication, which is not reliable.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per standard practice on Malkani names. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:13, 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 keep. It appears to be borderline, though the reliability of The Times of India still remains marginal per WP:TOI. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Nakshathra

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

Concerns of WP:GNG and WP:N. Subject fails WP:ENT. No reliable source found on a WP:BEFORE. The sources found does not appear to be reliable. Two of the sources are interviews. There are no secondary sources found. The awards won by the subject are also not notable. No major roles in the given film too, thus it fails WP:NACTOR. A major editor of the article removed {{notability}} tag with out explaining the reason, see. Sreeram Dilak 09:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak

09:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak

09:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak

09:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak

09:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:As per nom. Fails GNG. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ)

@Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla: WP:PERNOM is no argument.--157.46.143.190 (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pillechan clearly states that the subject fails GNG.Sreeram Dilak 15:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly satisfy WP:GNG, and notable as a television host, also satisfy WP:ENT for having significant roles in multiple television shows. Beside the three reliable secondary sources in the article [22][23][24] (other than interviews), there exist lots of "independent" reliable sources on the internet which are not interviews or mere mentions. A quick Google search gives significant coverage on the subject: The Times of India ([25][26][27][28][29][30]), Asianet News ([31][32][33]), Mangalam ([34]), Zee News ([35][36][37]), Vanitha ([38][39][40][41]), The Indian Express ([42][43][44]) to list a few. She was ranked among "Kochi Times Most Desirable Women on Television" in 2019 and 2020 by the Times of India. I request the closing admin to consider the merit of the arguments rather than vote counting.--157.46.143.190 (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These sources you provided did not qualify WP:GNG. Most of them are primary source. No useful secondary sources are found. --Sreeram Dilak 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ENT with sources presented by 157.46.143.190. They're secondary and reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Sources presented by the IP does not pass GNG. Those are primary sources. --Agnihothri Sharath (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares what you think? They're definitely secondary sources and are reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I also have concerns about the sources. Lacks secondary sources. I wouldn’t use Times of India for establishing notability See more at WP:TOI.defcon5 (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a TV hosts subject meets WP:ENT. Criterion #1 is not about having significant sources. It states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (BTW, source #1 from Youtube is dead, I tried to remove it, but it doesn't appear in the source code. Can someone tell me how this is inserted in my talk page? appears to be some kind of infobox module.) Peter303x (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply No reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Only primary sources found. Can you find any three sources that meet WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV? --Agnihothri Sharath (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agnihothri Sharath (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be ample sourcing provided by the anonymous editor above. I disagree with the sweeping statement that all of them fail GNG, what makes them non independent? They look okay to me. NemesisAT (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply most of the sources are from Times of India, which does not meet GNG and WP:N. See this too. --Agnihothri Sharath (talk) 04:00, 25 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) 14:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaditya Budhathoki

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

Non notable actor and director, fails WP:NACTOR. Lack of significant coverage from reliable resources. Also fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added his interview by himalaya times as citation. I hope that will help you identify if he pass WP:GNG.Milan260 (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete UPE spam. No RS cited. This is kinda sorta SIGCOV but all its claims are vague (His creations have won awards), except the list of "music videos and films" which it doesn't say which are which, whether the films are feature length (apparently not, going by our article) or why they're important. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOSOON as there is lack of WP:INDEPTH analysis. nirmal (talk) 05:11, 28 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. ✗plicit 09:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yarranlea Primary School

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

Primary school with no clear claim of notability. Proposing a redirect to Mount Gravatt, Queensland lovkal (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I figured the school being listed on the Brisbane City Council Heritage register may make it notable? Otchiman (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a number of newspaper articles as references as well as a peer reviewed journal article which performed a study on the school. Otchiman (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. lovkal (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Schools are rarely notable, but I think the history of this one does make it notable. --Bduke (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the oldest schools founded in 1883 and moved to its present location in 1888 to the current heritage building and as per WP:NEXIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of new sources added now, I've changed my mind. lovkal (talk) 22:23, 25 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 09:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Kossow

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

Non-notable mayor of a small city. Fails WP:NPOL; newspapers.com has some local news coverage, but nothing that really provides WP:SIGCOV beyond WP:LOCAL, so also fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Bloomington MN appears to be large enough that a substantive and well-sourced article about a mayor could potentially be kept, it is not large or important enough that its mayors would simply be presumed notable just because you write and primary source a short blurb that barely goes any further than "he was a mayor who existed". The notability test for mayors is not passed simply by writing a few stray tidbits of biographical trivia; it is passed by writing and reliably sourcing (meaning media coverage, not the city's own self-published website about itself and not user-generated family genealogy sites) a substantive article about his political impact: specific things he accomplished, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:42, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Park Street District (Columbus, Ohio)

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

Procedural nomination per discussion at RfD: "The article [stands] almost entirely as an advertisement for unnotable businesses there, and none of the references define the subject - the 'district' doesn't actually exist as far as I can tell from references and other reading." (per Ɱ). I'm neutral on whether the article should be deleted, but it seems clear a discussion should be held. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as initial "nominator". I have not found any evidence that this is a real district; none of the sources support it, and I can't find any others. Nor is it a term among local residents. $ɱ$ (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page was created by User:Jimison5, which is a WP:SPA, see Special:Contributions/Jimison.5, my guess is that they were an experienced editor who was paid to create this article as they created a draft of article in a sandbox and then created the article. Searching Newspapers.com for '"Park Street District" Columbus' in Ohio yields 6 hits. Two are from 2010 about a Park Street Festival - as notability is not inherited, these two articles do not support notability for this article. (I'm not so sure a Park Street Festival article would be notable, see WP:PRODUCTREV). One article has a passing reference to a house, the other three are scan errors. Searching GBooks yields some 1899 school-related hits about the Park Street District and some 1908 public works. The other GBooks hits don't apply. I found no WP:RS sources that are solely about this area. WP:GNG is not met. There is no legal recognition of the subject, nor is there any non-trivial coverage, thus #1 and #2 of WP:GEOLAND are not met. 18:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

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 23:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Laughinghouse

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

PROD contested with the rationale "his Article is of a former Mayor of a large city, and is currently incomplete.".

Non-notable mayor of a small city. Fails WP:NPOL; newspapers.com has some local news coverage, but nothing that really provides WP:SIGCOV beyond WP:LOCAL, so also fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Bloomington MN appears to be large enough that a substantive and well-sourced article about a mayor could potentially be kept, it is not large or important enough that its mayors would simply be presumed notable just because you write and primary source a short blurb that barely goes any further than "he was a mayor who existed". The notability test for mayors is not passed simply by writing a few stray tidbits of biographical trivia; it is passed by writing and reliably sourcing (meaning media coverage, not the city's own self-published website about itself) a substantive article about his political impact: specific things he accomplished, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. Falls short of an WP:NPOL pass and is lacking the coverage to be a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:57, 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. ✗plicit 00:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Thomasberg

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

PROD contested.

Non-notable mayor of a small city. Fails WP:NPOL; newspapers.com has very little even WP:LOCAL news coverage, and certainly nothing that really provides WP:SIGCOV, so also fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Bloomington MN appears to be large enough that a substantive and well-sourced article about a mayor could potentially be kept, it is not large or important enough that its mayors would simply be presumed notable just because you write and primary source a short blurb that barely goes any further than "he was a mayor who existed". The notability test for mayors is not passed simply by writing a few stray tidbits of biographical trivia; it is passed by writing and reliably sourcing (meaning media coverage, not the city's own self-published website about itself) a substantive article about his political impact: specific things he accomplished, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 00:16, 28 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 00:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donald R. Hasselberg

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

PROD contested.

Non-notable mayor of a small city. Fails WP:NPOL; newspapers.com has some local news coverage, but nothing that really provides WP:SIGCOV beyond WP:LOCAL (a couple of articles from Indiana and North Carolina that only give the subject very passing mentions), so also fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Bloomington MN appears to be large enough that a substantive and well-sourced article about a mayor could potentially be kept, it is not large or important enough that its mayors would simply be presumed notable just because you write and primary source a short blurb that barely goes any further than "he was a mayor who existed". The notability test for mayors is not passed simply by writing a few stray tidbits of biographical trivia; it is passed by writing and reliably sourcing (meaning media coverage, not the city's own self-published website about itself) a substantive article about his political impact: specific things he accomplished, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:41, 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 00:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mamiyara Marumagala

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

Unsourced, can't find any. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Kailash29792: The film was released on 25 December 1982. Please look in the Tamil-language newspapers that were published close to that date to find reviews that could be added as references. There are some listings for the film on online databases, but those listings are too brief to serve as useful references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. This is essentially a WP:2S. Kolma8 (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:NFILM defcon5 (talk) 07:48, 23 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) 09:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finney's HIT Squad

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was already agreed to be deleted last time. Somehow it was restored. I don't see any changes since the last time that justifies the gym having its own wiki page. Imcdc (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT. Just a local gym. KidAd • SPEAK 06:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only articles appear to be on the creation of the gym and when it changed ownership. It's only significance seems to be the fact that it was started by Matt Hughes. Notability of an organization or business is not inherited from the people involved with it. Being named the best MMA gym in St. Louis in 2011 by a free weekly newspaper is not sufficient to show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional, fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 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 10:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Combat Sports

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

The requirements to keep MMA gyms on wiki has gotten more stringent lately. In the page's current state it look towards failing WP:NORG. I can't seem to find anything substantial about the gym itself. All I can find are some brief mentions of it when talking about what gym a fighter trains at. Even the only reference this page makes is like that. Not to mention there don't seem to be many high level fighters affiliated with this gym except James Varner. In my opinion it seems more like a regional level gym rather than your typical "Super-gym" and so I'm not really convinced it should have its own wiki page. Also the article has been tagged as needing additional verification since 2010 and yet there has not been any real improvement to it. Imcdc (talk) 05:14, 22 September 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 September 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing to show this gym is WP notable. The article lacks sources and my search didn't find any coverage that would convince me that WP:GNG or WP:NORG are met. Papaursa (talk) 21:31, 25 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. Very clear consensus to keep and there doesn't appear to be a highly legitimate reason to delete. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of preserved British Rail diesel locomotives

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

Only cite added when article was created in 2009, all of the 200 edits in the ensuing 12 years has been WP:OR. Unless all entries can be reliably sourced, article should go. Iemeer18 (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think; I have no particularly strong feelings on whether the list should exist, but I don't think current lack of references is an adequate reason for deletion. We should delete if references could not conceivably be found. Preserved railways tend to attract a bit of press interest, at least locally, and it should be possible to verify the existence of almost all of these locomotives, if anyone wishes to. In fact, for some, we don't even need to look very far. The first in the list, British_Rail_Class_D2/10 has a referenced statement in its own article that two are preserved (it's a book that I don't have, so I can't check it genuinely supports the statement). Unfortunately the onus is on the deleter to demonstrate that sources don't exist, not on anyone else to insert them, and I'm not sure I have the energy to track down such a huge number. Taking a completely random example (honestly, I just picked it) British_Rail_Class_25, this also has, in its own article, a table of preserved examples, with no less than 12 references! (if anyone wishes to argue that the list is not necessary on other grounds, feel free!) Elemimele (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I spot checked one entry from each section by looking at the linked article, and every single one matched the figure given in this list, sometimes explicitly sourced sometimes not, but this information is very easily sourced so the nominator's concerns are not relevant. Given nobody appears to be disputing the notability of the list I think we're done here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Per Thryduulf. Slender (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid navigational list. Dream Focus 13:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above users. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Thryduulf. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above comments. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:53, 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 delete. ✗plicit 10:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Robinson (psychology)

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

Appears to be non-notable with unverifiable claims - "leading researcher" and "wrote the definitive book". The references are a school blog and two Amazon pages. SL93 (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to be up to the standards expected for WP:Prof, although quality of the writing of the BLP is poor. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. A noted retired/emeritus psychology Prof. The edited book Robinson, T.C.L. (Ed.), (1977) Proceedings of the XI (1975) Nobel Conference on the Future of Science, Gustavus Adolphus College, Wiley, (reviewed in Physics today) which in subsequent printings has the Nobel laureate Sir John Eccles added as the primary editor (Eccles, J. C., (1977). The Future of Science: 1975 Nobel Conference and his role in running ( Directorship) of the Nobel Conferences well as his papers on sleepy cats and opposums seems to me enough for academic notability. Have toned it down a bit and added some stuff that might help. (Msrasnw (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing anything suggesting he meets NPROF or GNG criteria. Being the director of a conference, particularly a non-notable one(?), isn't sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. doesnt pass WP:NPROF, the impact on the field is not clear and his alone papers do not pass WP:NPROF#1. --hroest 21:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:06, 28 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 03:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of black Primetime Emmy Award winners and nominees

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

This article doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for stand-alone lists, and I've nominated it for deletion. I suggest we create a page that compiles a list of all Primetime Emmy winners and nominees, or perhaps just nominees, as there does not appear to be one that includes all nominees. Does anyone have a legitimate reason for creating separate lists? I think the information would be better off aggregated in one cohesive article. There are multiple other articles that have this issue, but I suppose this one just caught my attention. If anyone would care to argue otherwise, that would be great. GrendelNightmares (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of nominator--above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. @GrendelNightmares: For future AfD nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 01:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 01:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 01:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Black winners and nominees have obviously been treated as a group by reliable sources (e.g. Essence), and it's been a topic of much discussion in recent years. Can the nominator expand on why they feel the topic fails WP:NLIST? pburka (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am sure this passes WP:NLIST to some degree (probably not through the most reputable sources) but I think it is a tricky cross-categorisation. My !vote is based on the inherent WP:BLP issues with this. Most sources will probably not have an exhaustive list of "black Primetime Emmy Award winners and nominees" so requires editors to do some compiling of their own. Editors will inevitably do some WP:SYNTH or WP:OR to determine who is "black". I know this might seem silly or like I am a pedant but this is actually a reasonably complex designation (especially for non-Americans). I don't think editors should be the ones to catalogue a living person's ethnicity. Two telling examples currently on the list:

Rashida Jones - could equally appear on a white or Jewish list (see her WP for her own complex views on her identity).

Nick Mohammed - His mother was Cyprus-born and his father an Indo-Trinidadian. As far as I can tell this wouldn't fit into the definition of "black" but it is not my place to make that judgement.

There are many others on the list of ethnically mixed parentage (Nathalie Emmanuel, Giancarlo Esposito, Steven Canals, Ezra Edelman, Maya Rudolph etc). You could possibly move this to List of African-American Primetime Emmy Award winners and nominees (which is an easier designation to verify) but where would that leave Lupita Nyong'o? Ultimately we would need a source confirming a winner/nominee is "black" as well as that they were a winner/nominee and I do not think editors will do that. Then we just end up with WP:BLP and WP:V issues. Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to belabour this point too much but I just noticed Trevor Noah is listed who was designated as coloured in South Africa which is/was a different racial category to black and caused him issues as a child of a “black” mother. Shift this to a US context and he is labelled black. Another example of how this list does not make sense. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another example of political soapbox listcruft that misses the point; trying to arbitrarily divide people into vague “racial” categories when they might have six different equally valid ancestries is outdated and stupid. Dronebogus (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. pburka (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don’t really think so but if you need more specific arguments then it’s unencyclopedic, arbitrary original research and impossible to define well enough to avoid endless arguments. Dronebogus (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would also suggest including List of Latin and Hispanic Primetime Emmy Award winners and nominees in this which hilariously includes Antonio Banderas and commits many of the same sins. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vladimir.copic: I agree, but for the record, Antonio Banderas is Spanish. "Hispanic" includes anyone from Spain or other Spanish-speaking countries. Him being on that list is not an error.
  - The list claims to “includes performers born in Latin America and with Latin American descent or heritage.” As far as I can tell being Spanish doesn’t fit this. To be fair this is just funny compared to the more eyebrow-raising placing of the Mexican flag next to American citizens, born in America who happen to have Mexican-American parents. Imagine doing something similar to Americans of European ancestry. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and similar lists. Whilst it is certainly true that "lifestyle" magazines produce lists of this kind, they also produce lists of "the stars' favorite barbecues" and "six mountain resorts you've never heard of": the publication of a list does not create notability per se. I'm particularly worried about how we specify who's on this list and who isn't. I'm pretty sure we can't go and ask every Primetime Emmy Award winner whether they identify as one group or another racially, and there isn't a standard criterion we can apply. I'm grateful to Vladimir.copic for his comments above, which put my somewhat inchoate concerns far more eloquently than I could manage myself! RomanSpa (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's far more than the publications you dismiss as "lifestyle" magazines. This topic has been covered by Hollywood Reporter, Variety, CNN, LA Times, and NY Times. There's no shortage of reliable sources which could be used to satisfy WP:V. pburka (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most of those would appear to be about individual black winners or #emmyssowhite which is a wholly different topic than just “black Emmy winners”. So I’d say it still doesn’t pass verifiability standards since individual notability =/= collective notability. Dronebogus (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also think that a dedicated page about EmmysSoWhite or Racial bias in Emmy Awards would be more useful and would be able to provide more context than a simple list. But I'm also not convinced that this list fails WP:LISTN or WP:V. pburka (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I definitely support one or both of the first two, but generally speaking I generally don’t think lists can be good articles if they aren’t about plain, objective information like “tallest buildings” or “people with dwarfism”. Dronebogus (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Clearly you've never been involved in discussions about whether the CN Tower is a building or whether One WTC's spire counts towards its height. The objective criteria for this list is simple: have reliable sources described the people as "Black Primetime Emmy Award winners (or nominees)"? pburka (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        there’s a world of difference between “+/- spire” (just list it off to the side in another column) and whether or not someone gets to be considered a “black person”, reliable sourcing or no. 3rd parties shouldn’t get to arbitrate people’s identities, and self-identification isn’t objective enough to use as the basis for this article. Dronebogus (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Simply untrue to say this is an objective criteria. Just read the intro to the Black People article for confirmation. This page even includes a weird WP:OR definition of what black means for the purposes of this list which is just wrong. Currently the list seems to follow some kind of Americanised one-drop rule for determining blackness. See my above comment about Trevor Noah and other for why this is absurd and has WP:GLOBAL issues. If we just use sources that actually describe someone specifically as a “Black Primetime Emmy Award winner or nominee” (Not African, African-American, Afro-Cuban etc) it will just be a weird hodgepodge of names happening to have been described in this very specific way. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd love to hear from some self-identifying Black Wikipedians about this issue. Bkatcher (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that’s a cool idea, but besides being original research you’re probably just going to get 5 completely different answers from 5 different black Wikipedians (a group I’m not part of). Dronebogus (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A very tragic cross-categorisation on race. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @Vladimir.copic. This article is a WP:BLP and WP:OR nightmare there is no way to properly verify and maintain. This sub-topic list of black Primetime Emmy Award winners and nominees is also an arbitrary creation. One article for all Primetime Emmy Award winners and nominees is one thing, but a random-segregated WP:OR list fails WP:V. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:47, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is proposing for a merge, rather than deletion. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Food Network (Canadian TV channel)

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

This channel does not appear to be independently notable from Food Network. For that reason, I propose that this be merged into the corresponding section within Food Network. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is proposing for a merge, rather than deletion. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Food Network Asia

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

This channel does not appear to be independently notable from Food Network. For that reason, I propose that this be merged into the corresponding section within Food Network. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harbour Plaza

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

Building is not notable. While tall, it is not notable in a city with many tall buildings. Not discussed in any major way for its architecture or any notable characteristic. Does not pass WP:NBUILD Alaney2k (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. I've added three references. Sources such as [45] in Toronto Star and [46] in The Globe and Mail establish notability. Also, the comment "While tall, it is not notable in a city with many tall buildings." downplays its exceptional height IMO. The development is the eights tallest building in Toronto. NemesisAT (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment These mentions in the Star and Globe are simply routine mentions of new projects in the city. The bigger topic is really that downtown has expanded south. Alaney2k (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references do not pass muster IMO, and I can't find any other decent ones. BlogTO is a content aggregator service that posts native ads all the time. The article in the Star is tagged as "special to the Star", which usually indicates non-independent coverage—and, in line with that, the article only interviews people affiliated with Menkes Developments, which built Harbour Plaza. The press release in Canada Newswire is a press release. Urban Toronto is a trade blog with no editorial standards I'm aware of. I cannot evaluate the Globe & Mail or Metro articles because I can't access them. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Globe and Mail article was accessible to me if I turned my JavaScript off. I included a link to its Wikipedia article as it appears to be a reliable, independent source. NemesisAT (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Special to the Star" indicates that the article was written by a freelancer, but the same editorial standards that apply to staff-written articles apply to those by freelancers at the Star. BlogTO appears to be a reliable source with advertising and editorial clearly separated. It also responds quickly when I've told it about an error in an article. The Toronto edition of Metro has ceased publication, but I added an archived version of that page from Internet Archive. Yes, Canada Newswire is a press release distribution service like Business Wire or PR Newswire in the United States. Urban Toronto seems to be as reliable as any print publication. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the standard of Urban Toronto is not at issue. What is at issue is the notability of this tower. Since Urban Toronto writes about EVERY project in Toronto, a mention in UT does not make a project notable. Alaney2k (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Alaney2k's comments. This fails WP:NBUILDING. After looking through List of tallest buildings in Toronto, buildings such as Commerce Court have received coverage that shows its apparent significance. The sources mentioned do not provide evidence that Harbor Plaza holds a historic, social, economic, or architectural significance. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Keep per NemesisAT. Although the sources do not pass WP:NBUILDING, they do pass WP:GNG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A building does not have to hold such significance to pass WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG per NemesisAT.4meter4 (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see we have enough WP:RS for WP:N. The Plaza does not have to pass the SNG and GNG. Per WP:N It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passing WP:GNG.Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough sources for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Janey Jacké

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

Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 18:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems that he participated in all the more extensive articles about him. Accessibility and friendliness towards the press does not help establish notability. gidonb (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. I'm having difficulty assessing the Dutch language sourcing, but I'm inclined to keep based on the filmography and English sourcing such as Gay Times. Also, I fully acknowledge rumors should not be taken into account, but multiple sources have speculated that the subject is set to appear on the upcoming 'international all stars' season within the Drag Race franchise. I think we should work to expand and not delete this entry. Also, the nominator's one (hyphenated) word nomination is not really an assessment of sourcing or a well thought out analysis... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Standalone articles about the subject include Gay Times (which states "Janey has proven to be one of the most formidable contestants in Drag Race’s ever-expanding history") here; Elle (combined article with one other drag queen) here; Noordhollands Dagblad here; and Nieuw Volendam (from 2019) here. Then of course there's dozens of articles assessing her appearance on RPDR combined with coverage of other queens. I agree with Another Believer that this article should be expanded, not deleted. --Kbabej (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 22:08, 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. Whether a redirect is merited is a separate editorial decision. ✗plicit 03:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Clivense

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

Article about a new association football club, founded by a former Chievo player and director, which aims to be an informal successor of A.C. ChievoVerona and is going to play Terza Categoria, the very bottom tier of Italian amateur football (organized at provincial level), and definitely not a fact that makes the club notable. The club has no legal or formal connection to Chievo Verona, and no past history to justify it having its own article. Angelo (talk) 00:06, 22 September 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 September 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, yet. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I'm the creator of the page I admit it should be deleted per above Dr Salvus 05:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as WP:TOOSOON. If the team should gain promotion to Seconda Categoria, I think that would be enough for notability but it's far too early as things stand. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @No Great Shaker: Seconda Categoria is the 8th tier of Italian football; only clubs in the top 3 (sometimes 4) tiers compete in the domestic cup. The more probable outcome is that the next season they could try to buy a licence for Serie D, as A.S.D. Città di Varese have done for example. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nehme. The thing is that we have articles for English clubs as far down as the tenth tier. A phoenix club in Italy would surely gain significant coverage if its team were successful in reaching the eighth tier so I think I'd like this to be saved as a draft until we see how they progress. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: The difference is that there are about 160 clubs playing in the English 8th tier, whereas there are almost 3,000 playing in the Seconda Categoria. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A.C. ChievoVerona which already briefly discusses the club. Nfitz (talk) 22:26, 25 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.

[1] Malkani, M. S. (2019). "Recently discovered basilosaurid, baluchithere rhinoceros, horses, sea cow, proboscidean, eucrocodile, pterosaurs, plesiosaur, fishes, invertebrates and wood fossils, tracks and trackways of dinosaurs from Pakistan; comparison of recognized four titanosaur taxa of Indo-Pakistan with Madagascar". Open Journal of Geology. 9 (12): 919–955.

[1]

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mac Ross}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international common standards}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stalwart Esports (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stalwart Esports (2nd nomination)}} --><!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federated States of Micronesia at the 2008 Summer Olympics}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Meadow, Delaware}}<!--Relisted-->