Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:17, 1 January 2022

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 31	January 02 >

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Helene Nordin

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

Badly sourced biography. The footballer of this name doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or any other appropriate guideline. Google News only seems to have coverage relating to the politician of the same name. Likewise when searching in the Swedish newspaper database and DDG. The two references in the article are passing mentions and do nothing to justify an article on Nordin. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find any WP:SIGCOV to indicate the subject should have a standalone article. GauchoDude (talk) 13:58, 7 January 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 no consensus. I don't think we are going to achieve a clearer consensus given this has had three relists. The general feeling is that the article should be kept and no view to the contrary has been expressed besides through the nomination itself. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waves (festival)

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

An article about a student event, referenced only to brief event announcement coverage (and with further such available, such as this promotionally-worded notice (2019). Despite the claims in the article text, such as that it "gained popularity far and wide due to the euphoria and ecstasy it creates", searches are not finding the evidence of notability needed to sustain an article here. I considered redirecting this to the article about the parent institution, where it is mentioned at Birla_Institute_of_Technology_and_Science,_Pilani_–_Goa_Campus#Student_life but a redirect without discussion seems inappropriate as this article was originally accepted at AfC, so I am instead bringing it here. AllyD (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs lots of cleanup and better sources to be added, but I think there's something salvageable here. Although it's a student event, it seems to have a lot of coverage in the local area. Googling for "Waves Festival Goa" comes up with some promising results, although some may be promotional.^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] JonnyDKeen (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep. This needs more sources, but it clearly seems to be a major event that would normally qualify for a wiki page, and has been running for years. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not been any discussion for three weeks, though may help to gain views on the sources offered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (as nominator): The articles in the References box above are examples of what I meant by "brief event announcement coverage": similarly-worded PR pieces about the festival. Clearly this annual event has existed for a number of years, but can anyone identify a level of substantial consideration about the event which would justify a distinct article? If not, isn't a redirect to the brief coverage at Birla_Institute_of_Technology_and_Science,_Pilani_–_Goa_Campus#Student_life an appropriate outcome? AllyD (talk) 12:21, 6 January 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Paga

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

Soccerway has 14 youth games for Paga and GSA has 4 games but only 52 minutes in a WP:NOTFPL league, therefore, Paga fails WP:NFOOTBALL. All of the cited sources are either stats pages, articles from clubs that he played for or trivial transfer rumours, no significant coverage. Google News has nothing more than a couple of small transfer announcements and DDG only yields Modern Ghana, which is basically a slight rewording of one of the other transfer announcements found through Google News. Paga does not currently pass WP:GNG, in my view. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Vision F.C.. Excellent work going the extra mile to identify and read sources, Spiderone. Unfortunately, it is a common practice by users to just see a bunch of citations or results on a Google search and assume the topic is notable only based on that. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 21:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Since he was also on the books of San Antonio FC and International Allies F.C., it may not be appropriate to redirect to Vision over those two. Secondly, I'm not sure how Paga would be incorporated at the destination article. With such minor coverage, I'm not sure that he even warrants a mention at Vision F.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as per nom. Additionally, Paga is no longer at Vision FC, so there would be no reason to redirect there. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 23:13, 2 January 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 delete. ✗plicit 05:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christo Allegra

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

The subject supposedly made some notable work, but there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources of said work: phi face, MARCO and Swen of the Wirble. He has worked for some notable companies, but so have millions of other "freelance artists". Vexations (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure what to make of this article. The subject is employed as a Design Director at Spatialize, which is the first sentence of the article and has a primary source. The second sentence leans on an interview, which really should not be used as a reliable secondary source. After that I get lost. The text doesn't document why this digital artist is notable . "He uses his art to express his beliefs on queer politics, WTC, financial data, visualization, and physicalized narrative" doesn't mean anything. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding anything in a BEFORE search to substantiate the notability of this artist. He does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST criteria for inclusion. Netherzone (talk) 00:53, 16 January 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Browne (racing driver)

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

WP:BLP of a racing driver who has only competed in very minor series and seems to be notable only for one event (winning the Formula Ford Festival). Most coverage is WP:ROUTINE, with this Autosport article and this Formula Scout article coming the closest to providing significant coverage that I can find in a WP:BEFORE search. Two of the Formula Scout articles cited in the article do focus on the subject ("FF1600 star Jonathan Browne to race in Indy Pro 2000 with Turn 3" and "FFord Festival winner Jonathan Browne to join GB3 with Hillspeed"), but both are just fairly routine announcements which both relate back heavily to said FF Festival win. What sourcing there is on this driver would probably be far better used creating articles about the events they have competed in rather than in creating a WP:BLP. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No clear claim to significance and does not meet GNG. Coverage is primarily focussed on events which as the nominator notes should be what our articles are on, rather than on the drivers with fleeting and insignificant notability. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and 5225C. No evidence of notability that I could find in my own searches. A7V2 (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject doesn't appears to be notable as per gng.Timetraveller80 (talk) 11:58, 6 January 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 Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 15)

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

Unsourced TV series article. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't speak Polish so can't speak to the quality of the sources, but just wanted to flag that the main page for this show links to season-specific pages for most of the series, so if the consensus is that this page isn't notable, presumably all the similar ones could also be deleted or merged into the main page. --CameronVictoria (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate one shouldn't be parochial, but I can't see any point in having an article with the Polish name as its title. Presumably anyone who can understand the article's title can also read the Polish WP's article on the subject, and anyone who cannot, will have no idea what the article is about anyway, which renders it utterly pointless to our English-speaking readers. Given that the natural language of English WP is English, it should at least be moved to an English-titled article (e.g. Your face sounds familiar (Season 15) (Polish TV show)), unless it is commonly known in the English-speaking sphere by its Polish name; and if moving it renders it meaningless, it probably isn't notable. Elemimele (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Each of the previous seasons has its own article, and most of them have only a single reference. So there is no rationale for deleting this one that doesn't apply to all the others. Whether they SHOULD have independent articles, and whether it is appropriate to have a Polish title for them, can be discussed elsewhere, probably at the parent article. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should apply all the others. It not acceptable for articles not to have references. The standard to pass Afd is WP:THREE. This article doesn't meet that. It does have one reference. Every part of it should be referenced. It is more than a question of fairness. A lot of these folks don't seem to want to put references in. They would rather copy the content from the source, like as happened here and leave as is. That is unacceptable in 2022. Saying they have a single reference doesn't escape the problem. The article was redirected twice, by different editor's and this editor, who has talk page full red warnings, edit warred to bring it and doesn't communicate. I'll get the rest of them in. scope_creep^Talk 11:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an article about all seasons. Wikipedia should not be a TV guide magazine. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am unclear as to why scope_creep nominated one season article when the same lack of notability appears to apply to the other single-season articles, e.g., Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 1) through Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 14). Elemimele's analysis applies to all of those, as well. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To further discuss GizzyCatBella's merger suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was planning on nominating the rest of them, but forgot about the afd. The analysis above seems to be valid. The statistics in each of these articles have been copied verbatim from the page, for example in Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 1). I will add them all to this Afd as a group. scope_creep^Talk 23:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because I believe they should be part of this Afd as they are effectively unsourced:

Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 7) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 8) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 9) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 10) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 11) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 12) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 13) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 14) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 15) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

scope_creep^Talk 23:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All to Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo. No evidence of separate notability. ```` Sig by user:Eggishorn at 01:08. Missing sig added by scope_creep^Talk 01:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per above and per my concurring view that the seasons do not have stand-alone notability. We are not a catalogue of TV show seasons, folks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Draft:Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 16) exists. Fuddle (talk) 21:01, 31 January 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aam Aadmi Party (Pakistan)

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

The party has not got any election success. It fails WP:NORG as the sources do not discuss the org in detail, only coverage is for the launch of the party. They have used the same name as a notable political party in India but that is not enough to make this org notable. Venkat TL (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I recommended keeping this article when it was nominated in 2015, but it's no longer clear to me that this article should be kept. Little information has been added to the article over the last seven years. There is no indication here of any elections this party has ever contested, and they are not listed in 2018 Pakistani general election as having contested that election. Nor does the Election Commission of Pakistan list them as registered here. There is a party listed as "Aam Admi Tehreek Pakistan", but it's not clear whether this is the same entity. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a new article has just been created about a new party, Pakistan Aam Admi Movement (PAAM). What its relationship is with the topic here I don’t know. Mccapra (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even I dont know, but going by the name, it is not the same as the article on AfD. Venkat TL (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it must be different. Aam aadmi is the transliteration of the Hindi and Urdu words for "common man", so apparently it's a popular term for use in political party names and slogans. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan90. I've seen plently of articles of parties with no election success getting deleted. If there is no political success, then it can't be considered notable. - SUN EYE 1 15:57, 22 January 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Azeez

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

BLP of a PR professional, sourced to PR. Mccapra (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - press releases are not reliable sources for establishing notability. I can find no coverage about this person that would substantiate having an article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She has different spellings, Lucy Aziz is also her spelling. I found her, she is leading business leader in OPPO GCC. In the Muslim middle eastern atmosphere where women are not as such in leading position Lucy Aziz or Lucy Azeez is one of the leading businesswomen. The sources from various news sites like Lofficielarabia, Laylina News, Middle East Info, Gulf Business mentioned her andher performance. Penandpencil2021 (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these you you believe are reliable sources? Mccapra (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article she is not a “leading business leader”, she’s a head of PR. Mccapra (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete her coverages are not in reliable independent sources, no evidence of notability. Brayan ocaner (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, PR as per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources are present, lacks notability as per the nom.Timetraveller80 (talk) 12:00, 6 January 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aboli

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

Non notable. Couldn't find any good sources. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete in accordance with WP:A7. There is no credible assertion of notability here. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a nationally broadcast television series, so it has a clear potential claim to notability by meeting WP:NTV. matt91486 (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't clear at all that any show broadcast nationally is automatically notable, and NTV doesn't say so either. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was automatically notable. I didn't even respond keep/delete at this point. However, it offers a clear claim to notability that would negate a speedy criteria. matt91486 (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A7 requires a credible claim, and a broadcast show isn't a claim of notability, it's just a claim of existence. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, that's just a different matter of interpretation between us. I believe nationally broadcast programs generally by default have credible claims to notability and should be resolved through the AfD process. A local TV series, I wouldn't have the same baseline credible claim in mind. I think this is especially true for series broadcast outside the US and UK, where reporting on TV series is considerably worse and there are real systemic bias concerns for what is covered in easily accessible online sources. matt91486 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 20:46, 20 January 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 Delete. G11'd shortly after nomination. (non-admin closure) jp×g 12:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sth Nahiyan

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

Some guy's resume. All of the citations are to his own website and there are no search results even resembling reliable sources. I don't think being an entrepreneur, full-stack developer, pianist and singer makes you notable (or else I'd be a BLP subject). jp×g 12:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. jp×g 12:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. jp×g 12:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. jp×g 12:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. jp×g 12:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. jp×g 12:11, 1 January 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nokturn Technology Company Limited

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

This article is very badly written. Of the four references, not a single one mentions the company's name, or is in any way related to it. It claims to have one hundred users. Wow! I do not find anything from a WP:BEFORE search. Since it has an infobox and references, I expect that a speedy nomination would be contested. jp×g 11:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. jp×g 11:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. jp×g 11:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to have been blanked by its creator, whose WP user name is the same as someone identifying on LinkedIn as the company's chief technology officer. This may be merely a misguided attempt to write a WP article about a subject too close to home. If you're the creator of this article and have had second thoughts about it, you don't need to blank it; you can also request its speedy deletion by adding the template {{Db-G7}} as the only person who's made significant input. This doesn't preclude the creation of another article when better sources are available; it is likely to be WP:TOOSOON. Alternatively, since there was no prod, and no conflict, this could be soft-deleted. Elemimele (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails most (if not all) of WP:NBUSINESS, and the infobox and references fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The references that were included before failed establishing notability entirely. To be honest, I think CSD A7 could've applied here anyway, since the infobox doesn't indicate importance in any plausible way (5 employees, 2 years old?) WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 06:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. Devokewater ^(talk) 17:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No references. Multi7001 (talk) 00:45, 4 January 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamnaa (TV series)

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

Fails a 'before' test. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 07:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 07:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 07:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs improvement as an article, but valid topic for a stub, meets NTV as nationally broadcast TV series. matt91486 (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 1 January 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 no consensus on the main article, redirect for the rest, with the option of merging independently sourced content. This discussion is a mess, and has gone on long enough. There is clear consensus that the spinoff articles aren't worth keeping. Consensus isn't clear on the main article; a standalone might be justifiable, or a merger to the article about the founder, but that decision should be taken on the basis of quantities of coverage in reliable sources, and rather than examining that this AfD has devolved into off-topic argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ameen Educational Society

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

Articles about a non-notable university and its several articles (listed below) that I had nominated through PROD deletion back in October which resulted in deletion. It seems that they were recreated, but nothing has changed in regards to the quality or information about them. Any sources currently used don't mention the school in detail and are only in passing. None of these articles meet GNG. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ameen College of Education
Al-Ameen College of Law
Al-Ameen College of Pharmacy
Al-Ameen Institute of Information Sciences
Al-Ameen Institute of Management Studies
Al-Ameen Primary & High School
Al-Ameen Arts, Science and Commerce Degree College
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep and Redirect all others to Al-Ameen Educational Society which appears to be notable. Al-Ameen is a known institutional chain in India. Definitely notable as a whole. But individual entries need to be redirected to the article on the society that runs them. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 08:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing notable can be given to any article nominated at an Afd discussion. But appearance is not a requirment. It's whether or not it actually is with sources that qualify in some form of significant coverage. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The articles about the colleges clearly aren't notable. The article about the institution might be, but from what I can the references are all either primary or extremely bias, trivial, PR puff pieces. Especially the ones from The Hindu. Which clearly aren't up to Wikipedia's standards. So the article isn't worth keeping unless someone can find references that are. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Merge all pages associated with the subject to the primary subject, which I believe is likely Al-Ameen Educational Society. I did see a few reliable sources on the primary subject, not each individual department of it. Add sections in the primary page about the various colleges, if relevant and reliable sources are available. Multi7001 (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the author of these articles, I leave it to all users for consideration. If not possible to keep it as separate, it can be merged. DreamSparrow ^Chat 17:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be fine with merging the articles as long as the target article does not become a dump for un-referenced material or material that is only sourced to primary references. If someone can pick out the few good lines and references from each article and just merge them though without the other stuff I'm fine with it being used as an alternative to deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There still needs to be sufficient established notability for the primary page. There have been countless deletion noms from high-scale American institutions like Princeton that attempted having separate pages for colleges, but there must be reason for a primary page first, then all other extensions merge, if relevant. There might be insufficient reliable sources in this case. Multi7001 (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. Which is why I said we should only merge the articles if there are good sources to do it with. Obviously I'm not for merging the articles if what we merge won't at all improve the target. I'd be really surprised if we couldn't find 2 or 3 useable references out of the 8 articles though, but it's possible they just aren't that notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am eager to see if the primary page, Al-Ameen Educational Society, avoids deletion. The focus should be on that page, and after the AfD nom concludes, the extensions/colleges should be merged, if relevant. Thus far, only seen strong sources and coverage for the institution's founder. Multi7001 (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main page doesn't have enough to survive with sourcing, etc. The article on the school's founder has better sourcing and the sources used on the school's article's are more about him than anything else. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might after the other articles are merged or redirected. There's really no way to tell until then though. I guess that's kind an inherent issue with "mass" nominations like this one. Not to say the articles shouldn't have been nominated this way, but doing so does make it a little harder to suss out the best option for all the articles involved in it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated as a mass because I had gotten them deleted after PRODDING them just last year as I stated in my nomination. For some reason, they were restored and all had failed per my original PROD nomination. So much so, the navbox that no longer exists for these articles was deleted because it was all red links. I think that if a prod deleted an article then it had merits to be. And if it were recreated, it was probably due to a deletion review discussion, but I didn't find one and the articles haven't changed in any form whatsoever post-recreation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately (or maybe not) it's pretty easy to re-create articles that have been deleted through the PROD process without any discussion or anything. At least you were able to get them deleted that way in the first place. Normally it's pretty hard for PRODs of schools to not be removed on sight. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:NORG multiple sources have been provided in the article. Any merge should be discussed on article talk page. Venkat TL (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Stop saying it does when you haven't read those links that are used as sources. All of those "sources" don't help the article pass notability. Not a single one of them talks about the school in-depth nor prove any notability. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the case is with the references or lack of them it's perfectly fine to have a merge discussion in an AfD. In fact, it's probably better to have it here where people will actually see and participate in the discussion, instead of on some random talk pages that no one will look at. Let alone participate in. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, this Afd may interest you since this is the same keep voter who's only here to go after me over one thing and claim that since I've nominated the article I'm causing a problem. And is making false accusations against me. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be careful with pinging specific people so it doesn't look like WP:CANVASS. If certain people are repeatedly making accusations toward you or causing problems in multiple AfDs that you've nominated the best thing to do is to report them to ANI. Reading over that AfD, it looks like both Venkat TL and Valjean are both bludgeoning, making personal statements, and have WP:COMPETENCE issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to canvass, just to alert the behavior and as to why this editor has voted keep. It's a major concern here as over there and on other discussion venues. Because as I've said and as you have said, their behavior is something I've noticed on Afd's where they vote keep since the article exists and find one or two links and thus they think it's notable. Even after repeated instance of trying to ask them how does it pass GNG, they don't respond to that issue. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know your not. It's still better to air on the side of caution though. I'm not going to vote in the other AfD, but I did leave a comment about the neutrality of references. Hopefully that helps. People often confuse what works in an article with what works for notability in an AfD, when they aren't really the same. For instance it's usually fine to cite a social media link in an article if it's supported by a better references, but no one can claim a social media shows the topic is notable. A lot of people don't know that though. So I'd give Venkat TL the benefit of the doubt that they just don't know the difference, rather then reading malicious intent into their actions. Not that I'm saying you are, just giving my perspective on your disagreement. If you do enough of these you'll learn eventually that it's mostly pointless trying to discuss things with people. 99% of the time people aren't going to change their vote or admit their wrong just because you lay out a well reasoned argument for why they should and are. It's not confined to just keep voters either. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Effectively unsourced. scope_creep^Talk 22:29, 13 January 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 no consensus of the weaker variety. A move should be considered per Chess' comments. Daniel (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chutzpa Productions

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

This was a 2015 keep, however I think it's time to look at this in light of current notability standards. This was not discussed at the time, but is an interview/review. I looked through those on their press site as suggested, and they're interviews mostly with Hecht, so not independent. This may be the exception, but I'm not sure it's a reliable source. I also explored creating an article on Hecht as suggested at the AfD, but I don't think there's the sourcing there either. Thoughts? (Will ping contributors to the AfD in a comment) Star Mississippi 16:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy @Shawn à Montréal, DGG, Laval, Jayron32, Alansohn, Qwyrxian, and Astronaut: as referenced in or contributed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chutzpa Productions. Omitting nom who is since sock blocked. Star Mississippi 16:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm turning up basically bubkis in a google search. Maybe a small handful of their productions would marginally pass WP:GNG, and also possibly the founder of the company, but per WP:NOTINHERITED, the company would need to stand on its own, and other than it's own website and social media accounts, there's little out there except for the name attached to its productions. --Jayron[[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#0
Weak keep. Maybe moving the information to the founder might help. There's always a choice between the person and the company when they are this closely inter-related, as is often the case in the arts. DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Conclusion last time was to move to the principal. Don't know why community time is wasted on this again. If one wants to contribute, the path is clear. Meets WP:GNG at the very least. gidonb (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment because I was unable to find evidence that he meets notability guidelines either, which is why we're here. Also, a lot changes in six years criteria wise. Would be helpful if folks can identify sourcing on which an article could be made. Star Mississippi 17:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources were included in the last discussion. Now again. It's the article space work that doesn't get done. gidonb (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on my searching, zero significant coverage in independent-reliable sources. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is unreferenced, notability is not evident, and the references I see above are not particularly impressive. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I didn't spend more than maybe 10 minutes looking for sources and came up with the following:

Sound Cloud
Tehran Times - “Forgotten on Sinjar” centers on the overlooked and almost forgotten genocide of the Yazidi people. It sheds light on a remarkable story of Christians, Muslims and Jews, who came together to save women and children that the world had forgotten.
Izzy Stream Israel TV
Times Will Tell (a podcast by Times of Israel)
Times of Israel article
Critics At Large - following is a quote by Hecht in a review authored by Shlomo Schwartzberg, a film critic and teacher at Ryerson University, Toronto: “Festivals are the lifeline of an independent filmmaker or for that matter any filmmaker, Jewish or not. Hot Docs is the biggest one. Being in a festival like Hot Docs gets your film noticed. After having two films in it for two years in a row, I can tell you that this alone gives you credibility in the very secluded and often snobbish documentary community. I'm not part of the clique, I do my own thing, and Hot Docs has been amazing in giving me a forum to showcase my work. Indeed it has, as one will discover after some deeper research into his work and the films he has produced. WP:Notability can certainly be elusive in situations like this one. Perhaps my experiences as an NPP reviewer/trainer, and retired TV producer helped guide my search for sources and more information. Based on what I've gleaned, Chutzpa Productions is notable, as is Igal Hecht. If an editor has the time to do the research, the article could be expanded to include a section about Hecht, or perhaps a stand alone BLP is an option worth considering. As a sidebar - I wanted to share this little tidbit about notability as it has proven quite useful in some of my training exercises for the NPP school. Atsme 💬 📧 02:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- and slightly too to @Gidonb as it's similar. So many interviews with Hecht. Do they really establish creative notability? It doesn't seem clear whether they work in a way they don't for the company since he's not independent of it. Star Mississippi 14:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your diligence and for asking questions. I have no doubt that the sources in my list establish notability - see WP:NRV. The few sources I found (in 10 minutes or less & there are more) are indeed "independent of the subject" and are not produced by Chutzpuh or Hecht or affiliated in some way (advertising, press releases, autobiographies, subject's website, etc.). If you get a chance, please read User talk:Atsme#Notability as there are many parallels relative to notability in general.

Keep. I agree with the reasons given by User:Atsme directly above. Knox490 (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It appears the owner of the company is more notable than his actual production company. The only source that convinces me this could have an ounce of GNG is this Times of Israel article. Do we have anymore of this? Even in Hebrew? Relisting because I am not convinced at this point and I don't think other reviewers will be, either, that this subject merits inclusion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that this has already been through AFD, and Atsme has provided a bunch of References above, in addition to what's already on the page, its a keep for me. Meets WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen you across many AFDs, and totally respect your searching, but can you clarify how these sources are independent of Hecht/his company when they're primarily interviews? As far as I've always heard, those don't help with GNG. Star Mississippi 14:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi Star they are interviews with him, and they discuss him - if someone/some company is the featured focus of an article, than that is legitimate RS.I wouldn't think that's the same as churnalism, which is basically republishing a press release form the company. As far as I understood, if someone is the feature of an article, then it counts, as longs as its not a replication of a press release? Happy to be corrected of course! Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Igal Hecht. While the sources Atsme have provided demonstrate notability, the notable entity isn't this production company, but the filmmaker himself. It would seem like Hecht is effectively synonymous with this company to the point that a find+replace of "Chutzpah Productions" with "Igal Hecht" in addition to a move would result in no practical difference to the article itself. On a more pragmatic basis the article would no longer have to be considered under WP:NORG in that case. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found more sources: Toronto.com, Video Librarian (review), Minding The Campus and I have no objection to a MOVE. I also mentioned it in my iVote so either way works. Atsme 💬 📧 05:08, 2 January 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 16:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bilibili original programming

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

Non-notable video hosting site. All references are WP:PRIMARY Whiteguru (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The site is quite notable in China. I think it wouldn't be very hard to include some reliable refs from Baidu. Sun8908 _Talk 12:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Douyin original programming is an bundled AfD for two potentially related articles. Singularity42 (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 22:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bilibili, while this can be a notable list, it is short enough it can be placed in the main article without much issue. When they make enough series, recreation can be reconsidered via WP:SIZESPLIT. Jumpytoo Talk 21:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing vote to keep as article was expanded after my initial vote, and the planned further expansion by Canadianerk would make the merger WP:UNDUE and WP:TOOLONG. Jumpytoo Talk 04:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Too many primary sources. Sachin.cba (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "Bilibili original programming" has been treated as "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources
1. 李禾子 (2020-11-28). "花大钱搞自制内容，B站怎么想的？" [Spending a large amount of money to product original content, what is Bilibili thinking] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
2. 初霁 (2020-10-13). "自制内容收视率高 B站就"破圈"成功了？" [Original content has high ratings. Bilibili successfully "broke the circle"?]. BT财经 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31 – via Sina Corporation.
Merge to Bilibili
I am worried that a merge to Bilibili would be either undue weight or would result in the loss of some of the content.
General notability guideline
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Draftify Article needs significant cleanup, expansion and additional sources, Bilibili is China-only, and all sources are currently primary. These are obstacles the article has to overcome, that much I agree with the nominator. But, the premise of the AfD is not satisfactory to me. If Bilibili is not a notable video service in any form, Bilibili should be the target? That's a whole can of worms, which is why I'd like to focus on the state of the article. Just how new the article is, is a problem. It was nominated for AfD barely a day after creation - and even if other editors came across, a lack on interest in this subject area and scarcity of English-language sources are barriers to improvement. So, I'd say that a more suitable solution is tagging the article for primary sources/other issues, to flag it to others, but given it's entirely primary at the moment it's understandable if that's not acceptable. That's why I think the best solution would be myself and hopefully others - stepping in and to help improve this article. If participants believe it must be removed from mainspace immediately, moving it to draftspace or userspace is a solution that would work. I've gathered at least 5 reliable (at least as far as I can tell) secondary sources after just a quick search, and believe I can both expand the article, and replace at least some of the existing sources. This source in particular indicates that they have far more original series than the article currently lists, for example. However, given the numbers listed there alone, I also think it's likely that article expansion - if I plan and implement it properly - would substantially increase the size of the article, which could hurt the case to merge (given it's a list, WP:SIZESPLIT is limited at best for this discussion anyway, but I figured I'd address this.) I'll get started on implementing some changes shortly - reducing primary sources below like, 50%, much less 10-20% will be difficult, but I'll focus on expansion first, then replacing- input, thoughts and help expanding the article is welcome! Canadianerk (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, WP:SIZESPLIT. Since the AfD started, this list has been quite significantly expanded, so much so that a merge would make the Bilibili page far WP:TOOLONG. Cunard above has also shown that there appears to be coverage of these series as a group in Chinese, thus also meeting WP:NLIST. While this uses primary sources too much, this is a problem that can be fixed by cleanup, which deletion is not. Link20XX (talk) 05:46, 7 January 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 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 11:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lathan Toland

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

The subject of this article fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO, and I failed to find any coverage about them on Google. Additionally, the subject of this article has requested deletion of the article (WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE) in the IRC Help channel. Java Hurricane 08:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 1 January 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 delete. Tone 12:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flat No.4B

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

Non notable film with no major cast members. Fails WP:NFILM with no reviews from notable publications as well as WP:N due to the paucity of other references. Has been made by a single purpose editor whose name also indicates conflict of interest Jupitus Smart 07:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-sourced and easily notable. Needs clean up and polishing and not to be deleted. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure how this is considered well sourced. For your reference we consider only references from notable publications while evaluating notability, and a list of such publications can be found at WP:ICTFFAQ. The quality of the references already on the page are listed below

[1] has 1 small line which says the lead actor won a best debutant actor award. The award is not notable and as with a lot of awards in Kerala, it is quite evident that award was bought by the actor, with the organisers adding that many films were not considered as they were not submitted. Also WP:NOTINHERITED applies here.
[2] is 6 lines in a small press release type article from Times of India. Also to be noted here is that the banner is Kautilya Films which is also the name of the editor who created this Wikipedia article.
[3] is a listing of theatres in Thrissur and the movies that they were showing on a particular day. Unsure if this adds any value to the article apart from indicating that the movie was released in a run down theatre while the other biggies occupied the bigger theatres.
[4] is a listing of theatres in Thrissur as above
[5] is dead
[6] is a press release
[7] is just a listing of the movie
[8] is also dead
[9] is also dead

WP:NFILM requires 2 reviews from major publications. I was unable to find any review - from sources which are reliable or even from those considered unreliable. Also with 22 IMDB ratings [10] it is quite evident that the movie did not get a wide release which would have made it notable, or even worthy of reviewing by publications. Delete it should be. Jupitus Smart 16:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - first, WP:NFILM does not require reviews but rather lists the existence of film reviews as possible evidence of notability. Secondly, dead links could be retrieved using archives - it doesn't mean that sources do not exist, it requires clean up. Your claim that IMDb ratings indicate the kind of release a movie received is not based on any factual information. Also, notoability of films does not derive from how big their release was. As for the user who created the film article being named just as the production company - it still remains in the form of a speculation, which I personally do believe too but can't prove, nor does it matter as far as the film's notability is concerned anyway. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shshshsh: Two reviews are actually required when it does not meet WP:GNG or if it does not meet any of the other requirements at WP:NFILM. Please indicate how this meets WP:GNG from the quality of references as discussed above. Also it is quite evident from the URL of the deadlinks that they are nothing more than picture galleries which also does not impart any notability - meaning finding archives also won't be very useful. I was not using the IMDB ratings as a metric of notability, but merely implying that the lack of coverage in reliable sources, which is a required metric for us, is a reason why nobody has watched this movie. I would also request you to indicate why notability is met, instead of harping that notability is met without any factual basis. You may choose to ignore the conflict of interest provided you can indicate notability is met, in which case cleanup would suffice, but in the absence of coverage in reliable sources this does not meet the requirements to remain. Jupitus Smart 14:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's agree to disagree. :) If the community decides to delete it, so be it. My entire perception of Wikipedia, especially in regard to which articles should stay and which shouldn't, is different, I guess. I always improve Indian cinema-based articles which are up for deletion, and I would do with this film, which I know nothing about, too, if I had more time. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we both are inclusionists as I noticed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umma (1960 film) and in some other discussions. I am also happy that someone is actually believing in the need for protecting Malayalam movie articles and would have been more glad if you had showed up earlier when some of the classic oldies were deleted (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gajakesariyogam among others). But this movie is not one among those which is why I have nominated this for deletion. I might also nominate the lead Riaz M. T. which is also probably made by the same syndicate. Happy editing. Jupitus Smart 01:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks reliable reviews for NFILM and no indication of meeting GNG. Considering the film is from 2014, its not unreasonable to expect a couple of reviews to show up online. However, offline sources may exist. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence in the article or in searches that this passes GNG or NFILM. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:07, 24 January 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Levente Révész

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

WP:BLP of a young racing driver who has only participated in very minor series and seems to at most be notable only for one event (signing to race in FREC). A WP:BEFORE search returns some WP:ROUTINE coverage of race results, but very little signficant coverage from independent sources. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nominator's rationale, fits into the category of young drivers given an article without doing anything to garner the attention needed. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure I understand the nominator's part where WP:ONEEVENT is mentioned for "signing to race in FREC", because that event doesn't even grant him notability (and FRECA isn't the tournament that falls under the criteria 1 of WP:NMOTORSPORT). To no surprise, there's no significant coverage of Levente in secondary sources, and thus fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. I was unable to find any independent significant coverage. A7V2 (talk) 08:47, 5 January 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman Pendergarst

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

Fails WP:MMABIO notability critera, he does not have 3 fights in a top tier promotion, his highest ranking by Fight Matrix was #72 in the world. WP:GNG is also failed, majority of his coverage is through routine sporting report. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 04:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet any MMA notability criteria and lacks the significant coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. With 11 victories is 30 matches, I have to wonder how he was ever ranked as high as he was. Papaursa (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NMMA and GNG. Cassiopeia talk 08:08, 8 January 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 It's Such a Beautiful Day (film). ✗plicit 00:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: This closure was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 12. Sandstein 07:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Will Be OK

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

this is the first part of It's Such a Beautiful Day (film) and everything said here can be merged into it HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 03:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to It's Such a Beautiful Day (film) Per the nom. Pahiy (talk) 15:45, 1 January 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 It's Such a Beautiful Day (film). Stifle (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Am So Proud of You

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

this is just the second part of It's Such a Beautiful Day (film) HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 03:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to It's Such a Beautiful Day (film) Per the nom. Pahiy (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A no vote to delete/merge from me. This is not 'just' the second part of "It's Such a Beautiful Day". This was an animated short film that was released theatrically in 2008 and received multiple awards and praise as a standalone piece. It was not edited into the feature film version of the longer story ("It's Such a Beautiful Day") until 2012. For that matter, the proposal to delete and merge the page for "Everything Will Be OK", the first film, is also a mistake. "Everything Will Be OK" was a standalone animated short film that was shortlisted for an Academy Award in 2007 and won the Grand Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. These were originally released as individual short films, viewed by audiences for years that way, and should remain listed here as such. Also, my apologies if I'm not using this interface correctly! Ang-pdx (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sequels can be notable tool. The claim "The film won 27 film festival awards" is worth considering, but I note the "failed verification" tag. Right now the article passes notability based on unverified claims, so the question is, will someone claim said claims are fake or exaggerated? If not, I'd lean towards keeping this while retaining/adding copyediting templates, some of which are already present. This may be the case of a notable topic, poorly referenced - but I didn't bother doing my own BEFORE this time (hence, no vote, just comment). Ping me if more sources are found (or their lack becomes more apparent) if you'd like me to vote one way or another. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to It's Such a Beautiful Day (film) The references in the article and results of searches do not support independent notability of this film under NFILM or GNG. The references that are available in independent, reliable sources are not significantly about this film but to the prior film. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Eggishorn, that is simply not true. This article is just in need of more work. This film screened in competition at Sundance, which is notability alone. It was later released on its own, standalone DVD:

https://www.amazon.com/Proud-You-Everything-Will-Chapter/dp/B003JOS9U2/ref=sr_1_7?crid=20MV1HB8QCRYM ...I've added an additional reference, from the filmmaker's own website. This article should stay put. Ang-pdx (talk) 19:08, 2 February 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trotters, North Dakota

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

The old church here is hugely photogenic and is endlessly photographed, in no small part because it stands alone by the side of the road, a short distance from an abandoned gas station which appears to have opened in the mid 1980s, replacing a pair of buildings on the opposite side of the road. Sources imply those buildings included a store at some point, but this is another place where there's no sign anyone actually lived here. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Trotters and its last (and for a while only) resident, Leonard Hall, got quite a bit of newspaper coverage in the late 20th century, much as Monowi, Nebraska does today. There's this Associated Press article from 1981, this article from 1987 in the Bismarck Tribune, this article six years later in the same newspaper, and this article from when the post office closed in 1995. All four articles are fairly substantial, and when put together amount to significant coverage. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is interesting, though I don't know that I'd call it extensive, as it is more or less the same story repeated at intervals, with some variation due to the passage of time. But more importantly, it's about the post office and the postmaster, and there's precious little about any town except for the assumption that there was one, and some passing mention of the church. It tends to ratify my analysis that the only thing ever here was the store/PO and the church, and that there was never any encompassing settlement. I think the notability claim is a stretch at best, but if it survives, it wouldn't be an article about a town. Mangoe (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - might not be a "legally recognized populated place", but meets GNG with sources provided above. Spicy (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has sources-Thank You-RFD (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with sources added to article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Doremo (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unincorporated communities are considered notable. Seacactus 13 (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how discussions have gone of late, and in any case, the bigger issue here is that the evidence is that this was not a "community". It was a post office operating out of a store. We have routinely deleted these. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"of Trotters, N. D., being old respected settlers of this community" (The Wahpeton Times, May 28, 1916); "Two inland communities, Golva and Trotters" (The Bismarck Tribune, May 4, 1950); "ranch in the Trotters community" (The Bismarck Tribune, May 6, 1952); "John A. Gorrell of the Trotters community" (The Bismarck Tribune, Apr. 27, 1961); "ranch in the Trotters community" (The Bismarck Tribune, Apr. 28, 1961); "settled in the Trotters community" (The Bismarck Tribune, Apr. 2, 1981); "in the Trotters community" (The Bismarck Tribune, Jun. 11, 2006) Doremo (talk) 04:05, 8 January 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 delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Penpals (band)

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

As far as I can tell, the only feature of this group that meets WP:NMUSIC is the composition of a 1:15 minute long theme song for a 24 year-old anime Berserk (1997 TV series). This act doesn't seem like enough to warrant a Wikipedia article but maybe AFD regulars who review deletion discussions about musical groups can assure me that this accomplishment does make them notable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added a few more references (Japanese language).Hindijux (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable music band fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The added references do not support notability under GNG or NMUSIC any more than the previous ones did. They are to the band's own media or to articles that discuss other bands. They support possible notability for Hayashi Munemasa, who was a member of this band and has apparent RS coverage for two further bands he formed, but notability is not backwards-compatible. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:22, 24 January 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Beach

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous discussion ended in no consensus, however, this film still does not have enough to pass WP:NFILM. Merely being shown at Festivals does not guarantee notability. Hopefully a second discussion will come with a firm result. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding coverage for the director, who looks like he is probably notable, but I'm not really finding anything for the film in specific. I'll keep digging, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll grant that I was the nominator the first time, but neither the issues nor the sourcing here have actually changed. An editor removed the maintenance tags in October, without actually addressing the substance of the reasons why they were added in the first place: there's absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about the film being shown here at all, except for a brief glancing mention of the film's existence in an article about its director (which is not enough in and of itself). Simply being shown at film festivals is not a notability freebie in the absence of published reviews of the film by professional film critics in real media, and "notability because awards" is not automatically fulfilled by every award presented by just any old film festival that exists: that attaches only to a narrow elite tier of film festivals (Cannes, Berlin, Toronto, Sundance, etc.) whose awards can be shown to garner media coverage, and not to film festivals whose awards have to be cited to the festival's own self-published website about itself because media coverage doesn't exist. That is, an award has to be a notable award (i.e. an award that the media considers important enough to cover as news) in order to make its winners notable for winning it. But the award claims here are cited to primary sources, not media coverage, which means they aren't notability-making awards. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the film from having to be sourced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concur with deletion statements made thus far. If festival awards were to contribute to notability, at least one review would be expected out of the festival to meet GNG. — 2pou (talk) 02:27, 9 January 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baxter Taylor

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

I found nothing that shows this singer is notable. SL93 (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but. I thought the same, but the question is whether: "Taylor discovered that his song "Marie Laveau" had become a hit, recorded by Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show in 1971 and Bobby Bare in 1973. In 1975, over 12 years after it was written, Taylor and his co-writer Shel Silverstein received a BMI Songwriting Award for the song." means that subject passes WP:GNG due to receiving an award. Jdcooper (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I doubt that the "BMI Songrwiting award" is a prominent enough accolade to pass WP:NMUSIC criteria 8. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:46, 15 January 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 keep. Star Mississippi 17:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Cardozo

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

Entire article consists of the fact that he worked at two organizations (EFF and Facebook) and that he likes brewing beer. This is the definition of an article of minor significance. I have tried searching for additional sources or accomplishments of the subject and have been unable to do so. Does not meet notability. WP:NOR WP:N Yipee8f93k (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yipee8f93k (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – the article as written isn't too impressive, but there are quite a few sources about Cardozo's move to Facebook: [11] (characterizing him as "prominent")[12],[13], [14], and others. None of those are perfect sources, but they're arguably enough to establish notability, particularly since he's frequently cited in the press and in books. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove – Crucially, all the sources about Cardozo's move to Facebook are about the unique choice Facebook itself made hiring a critic, not about anything that makes the subject himself any more notable than any other public policy critic of one of the largest companies in the world. See: [15] (noting "Cardozo has written acerbically" about Facebook and failing to describe any other notable accomplishments)[16] (noting "Cardozo once wrote in an op-ed" and failing to describe any other accomplishments),[17] (noting Cardozo "certainly hasn’t minced words about his new employer" and failing to mention any other specific accomplishments, [18] (noting one accomplishment as "For years he worked on EFF's annual report ranking tech companies" but failing to describe his particular role or level of involvement or importance). These citations, and a few mentions of the substance of his criticisms in other publications, fail to meet the notability requirement that the subject receive "significant coverage" per WP:BIO [19]. No sources indicate nomination or receipt of a significant award or honor; no sources indicate "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field"; and subject is not an entry in a national biographical dictionary. The article would thus appear not to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Cheers Yipee8f93k (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references are enough to show the importance, and the article could be expanded to show the context. The sentence about his hobby should of course be removed as non-encyclopedic , but that's no reason for deletion of the article DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in Wired, Ars Technica, and AdWeek is easily enough to demonstrate notability under the usual standards. The above attempted minimization of these sources is not convincing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG's rationale. The content is remarkably skimpy but the references are enough to meet notability guidelines. I am ambivalent about the beer hobby except I note it was a prominently discussed quality of a recent US Supreme Court appointee. Ifnord (talk) 16:57, 24 January 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 delete. ✗plicit 04:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased role-playing video games

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

No per-game sources (the last used citation was taken in 2008) with a large amount of WP:GAMECRUFT. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:23, 1 January 2022 (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/2022 January 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Confusing title. It made me believe that the list was about video games in development, but it really just refers to vaporware or cancelled games. There does not seem to be a need for this list as there is no clear difference between a game in development hell and one that was soft cancelled._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if the article is kept (it probably shouldn't be) it needs to be renamed and given inclusion criteria or something. It's a mess as is. Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list is a mix of cancelled, "unknown", and TBD games. It's not useful. Neo-corelight (Talk) 00:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn't seem a good way to group them. Category:Cancelled video games shows a massive number of articles exist for canceled games, divided based on what they were going to be released on. Role playing game is not really defined too well, since most games have you play as a character with a history and whatnot. Dream Focus 02:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unclear what the subject or scope of this article is supposed to be. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — They should be moved to the list of canned titles for their respective platforms instead of this... Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:58, 7 January 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 delete. ✗plicit 04:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Letha Weapons

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

Fails the GNG. All the refs are trivial coverage or name drops along with other porn stars with hugely augmented busts. Wouldn't have even passed the later versions of PORNBIO. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nom couldn’t have put it better. “Huge fake boobs” is not a sufficient rationale on its own to keep. Dronebogus (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack enough coverage in the article or elsewhere to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 3 January 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 delete. ✗plicit 04:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evdile Koçer

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

There is not enough independent and reliable sources to prove its notability. If we take a look at the sources in the Kurdish Wikipedia article, this one is mostly an interview (non-independent), here is a poem of him, and this one is completely an interview. The only source in the English article is this, and it mentions about his visit to a foundation, which doesn't provide us any notable information to add to the article. Nanahuatl (talk) 23:05, 17 December 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 23:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, for failing WP:ANYBIO. For writers, it is not about what they write but what others write about them. This subject does not cross the bar. Ifnord (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kurdistan letting the wikiproject know about this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI have seen the message at the Wikiproject Kurdistan. I have also googled the subject and not much came up except for Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook. As to me a Wikipedia article shouldn't be a social media profile. In the current state, delete.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:00, 1 January 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 delete. ✗plicit 04:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin

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

Filled with primary sources and dubious claims, this BLP appears heavily edited by either COI or the subject. I invoke WP:TNT, not notability, as basis for deletion. Ifnord (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Questionable notability, a lot of content here, like about the criminal allegations, is far from neutral and some of it, such as the material on the British royal family, has nothing to do with him. And he is called "Lord Sayyid"? It's amazing it's been on Wikipedia for 14 years without being challenged in an AFD. Too bad it was de-PROD'd 12 years ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is the first AfD of 2022 for me. I think I need to go and lie down. Wow! Mccapra (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT just blatant POV. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The sources are not convincing for a pass of WP:GNG. Even the best of them (#1, the Star detox story) only mentions him in passing. And in any case WP:TNT and WP:PERP also apply. How has such a bad article survived for so long? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think TNT would be quite suitable, since the COI issue is long stale by now, so it doesn't help to have it in the history. There is a risk that some well meaning individual might restore a lot of the stuff on the page currently, if it's left in the history, which would be an issue. Mako001 (C) (T) _{^{(The Alternate Mako)}} 07:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatantly promotional with no real significance shown. Tame (talk) 08:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:20, 4 January 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 redirect to TV.com#TV Tome. ✗plicit 04:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MovieTome

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

There are no significant, independent, and reliable sources for this defunct website from the 2000s. Pahiy (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TV.com#TV Tome A lot of words to tell us 'an attempted brand extension that failed'. Also, congratulations on the first deletion nomination of 2022 (per GMT)! 🥳 Nate • (chatter) 01:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TV.com#TV Tome per User:Mrschimpf. This will put the information in its most notable context. BD2412 T 03:48, 8 January 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 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 04:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Drescher

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

The subject is a deceased animal performer that does not meet notability guidelines. The only notability of the dog is that it had a role on its owner's TV show from the 90s. Pahiy (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing notability guidelines. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:52, 9 January 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.

[1] ttps://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/waves-bits-pilani-goa-2021-ile-de-fantaisie-12-14-nov-2021/26770

[2] ttps://youthincmag.com/waves-2021-bits-pilani-goas-annual-cultural-festival

[3] ttps://www.groovenexus.com/event/college-fest/waves-bits-pilani-goa/

[4] ttps://www.thegoan.net//all-set-to-make-waves/37967.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helene Nordin}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waves (festival)}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Paga}}