Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 08	September 10 >

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 keep. Shushugah's sources remain uncontested. Sandstein 21:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vista, The Royal Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Society for the Blind

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

A worthy cause, but doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As its been around 163 years it seems very likely that there has been coverage. It doesnt have to be online. There is a written history. Rathfelder (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page got wrong name. It should be The Royal Leicestershire, Rutland and Wycliffe Society for the Blind (Vista) See https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mrs-v-taruvinga-v-the-royal-leicestershire-rutland-and-wycliffe-society-for-the-blind-vista-2602671-2019, https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?regId=218992&subId=0 -GorgonaJS (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Research usually calls them "Royal Leicestershire Rutland and Wycliffe Society for the Blind" and a book was written specifically about them and they are mentioned extensively in the following peer reviewed journals linked:

Seaton, Derek (1994). Light amid the shadows : the history of the Royal Leicestershire, Rutland and Wycliffe Society for the Blind, 1858-1993. Leicester: Royal Leicestershire, Rutland and Wycliffe Society for the Blind. ISBN 0-9524267-0-6. OCLC 36346505.
Hayward, L. M.; Burden, M. L.; Burden, A. C.; Blackledge, H.; Raymond, N. T.; Botha, J. L.; Karwatowski, W. S. S.; Duke, T.; Chang, Y. F. (2002). "What is the prevalence of visual impairment in the general and diabetic populations: are there ethnic and gender differences?". Diabetic Medicine. 19 (1): 27–34. doi:10.1046/j.0742-3071.2001.00603.x. ISSN 1464-5491.
Robertson, N.; Burden, M. L.; Burden, A. C. (2006). "Psychological morbidity and problems of daily living in people with visual loss and diabetes: do they differ from people without diabetes?". Diabetic Medicine. 23 (10): 1110–1116. doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.01970.x. ISSN 1464-5491. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rathfelder (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shushugah.4meter4 (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rygnestadtunet. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vonde-Åsmund

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

Some coverage but not enough to meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rygnestadtunet. The legend itself written from an in-universe perspective, so to speak, is not very interesting, and any writing about Åsmund should thus focus on the cultural significance. Much of the current article should be WP:TNT'd. As it turns out, "Vond-Åsmund" is mentioned in at least 62 books, such as a passing mention in the biography on Jørgen Moe; he is mentioned in general Norwegian history books written by Ståle Dyrvik and Øystein Rian, a geography book by Werner Werenskiold, tourist books, cultural histories of Setesdal and Southern Norway, in Olav H. Hauge's diary, as well as in old general-purpose encyclopedias Norsk allkunnebok and Gyldendals store konversasjonsleksikon - among others. The latter encyclopedia, though, has Vond-Åsmund down as a soft redirect to Rygnestad. So why not do the same here? (although WP:NOTPAPER.) Geschichte (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Rygnestadtunet per WP:CHEAP.4meter4 (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nabis (company)

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

no indication of notability. Advertisement of a Cannabis company. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORGDEPTH JeepersClub (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JeepersClub (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JeepersClub (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of this stub, I would like to oppose its deletion. I believe that Nabis meets the notability guideline; the company has been profiled in mainstream media such as Business Insider, Reuters, Forbes, and TechCrunch, each of which is footnoted in the stub.

These sources provide significant coverage of the company beyond a mere trivial mention. Here are two examples: https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickdaso/2020/11/04/nabis-raises-10m-to-take-the-cannabis-industry-to-a-new-high/?sh=ff0290a38729 (this is a journalistic news article, not sponsored content) and https://www.businessinsider.com/nabis-cofounders-california-cannabis-distributor-microsoft-facebook-engineer-2021-5.

The second sentence of the stub says, "The company is one of the largest business-to-business distributors of cannabis in California." What makes California important? According to https://www.businessinsider.com/marijuana-cannabis-distributor-nabis-raises-23-million-series-b-california-2021-6, it's the biggest cannabis market in the U.S.

Thank you for your consideration. FishAndChips36 (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The CSD was appropriate. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator of this AfD JeepersClub is a blocked sock. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This article has been listed three times for deletion, yet consensus remains elusive. The nominator has been blocked. The arguments I articulated, both here and on the Talk page, have not drawn a response. And I have added numbers to the article itself. It has now been more than 14 days, so I respectfully propose that the article be allowed to stand. If objections remain, the Talk page is active and available. Thank you for your consideration. FishAndChips36 (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company distributes beer and Italian cookies? Looks like a fake company, based on the links in the article. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regrettably. I'm here despite strongly disagreeing with all the other "delete" !votes and wanting to !vote "keep". Given a credible claim of significance being present when it was tagged via "one of the largest business-to-business distributors of cannabis in California" and a reasonable claim to meeting the general notability guideline, it is very clear that the CSD was not appropriate, contrary to what a !voter above claims. As for Oaktree b's claim of a "fake company", perhaps they're confusing the company with Nabisco?
As for the merits, it unfortunately does not meet the companies guideline. Prior discussions from the community found that Forbes contributor sources are generally unreliable, while there is no consensus for the reliability of TechCrunch and Business Insider. Given that and the fact that the coverage in Reuters and the Wall Street Journal is not significant (a few sentences), the company is not sufficiently notable. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your candor and specifics, Sdrqaz. Whereas others assert, you explain. I appreciate that greatly. (P.S. I too was mystified by the notion of a "fake" company.) FishAndChips36 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet a notable company. Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timo Rost (boxer)

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

My before search found significant coverage in German, however, the reason I've brought this here is because significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. Yes, I believe (I only checked one of the German sources) the subject does indeed pass GNG, but I'm here to raise the question of why this subject merits an article. As far as I can tell, Rost's biggest achievements are reaching the semi-final of the German national championships as an amateur, and as a professional, winning an insignificant regional title in 2019 and losing to a former world champion the following year. So, let's just ignore GNG for a second (after all, significant coverage is an assumption that a subject merits an article)...what actually makes this individual notable and worthy of inclusion? ².O.^Boxing 21:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer believe he passes GNG per my reasoning below. – ².O.^Boxing 23:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 21:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 21:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 21:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article after concluding a research on Rost in which i was able to pick some good reason why i think this article should not be deleted first of all rost is a professional german boxer and quite popular in germany and other country Beckyrose233

@Beckyrose233: I don't doubt Rost's popularity, but popularity isn't the same as notability. What is it that makes him notable? Being a professional boxer is not noteworthy. – ².O.^Boxing 23:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: as I said, I think rost has gained recognition in the boxing industry and for that, I think he quit notable am not even from Germany and I believe have watched a couple of matches featuring rost he has amassed popularity and notability status for him self in the last couple of years Beckyrose233

@Beckyrose233: he definitely doesn't have recognition in the boxing industry; his only real achievement is winning the WBF International title. The WBF is not considered a notable organisation and the International title that Rost won is not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment. Additionally, he's never been listed in any of the rankings (top 10, 15, or 40) by the organisations listed in criteria 3 at WP:NBOX.

Again, I do presume he satisfies WP:GNG, however, in situations such as this I think it's more than reasonable to have a discussion (beyond "passes GNG") to determine what actually makes this individual worthy of inclusion. – ².O.^Boxing 13:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question/Comment Where is the coverage that shows he meets WP:GNG? I did an admittedly quick check, in English, and found lots of routine sports reporting and promoting but little that convinces me the WP:GNG is met. It's clear he fails to meet WP:NBOX, so meeting WP:GNG becomes important. I think that if GNG is met, then the question of why he's notable is a bit irrelevant because, in my opinion, the world at large would have indicated he's WP notable and that trumps any editor's viewpoint. Papaursa (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa, your comment just reminded me of the very first statement at GNG, Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time (bolding mine).

So, the sources I found are in German. The results I get in a standard German-language search all relate to a single fight with Felix Sturm, which received wide coverage in Germany, but basically WP:1E. When amending my search to "before:2020", I get results like: Westdeutsche Zeitung, Rheinische Post, Remscheider General-Anzeiger. I stopped there as I'm using Google translate and am on a mobile device (terribly tedious), but they're outlets that serve the North-Rhine Westphalia region of Germany, so the coverage doesn't appear to be by the world at large after all. I believe this is comparable to a subject only receiving coverage in the Yorkshire region of England or New York State, which I don't think satisfies GNG. – ².O.^Boxing 23:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He definitely fails the notability criteria for boxers at WP:NBOX. My own search of both English and some German sources did not show what I consider sufficient significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. This is a hoax. The references used don't remotely match what was in the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Country Ridge, Iowa

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

I can find no evidence of this place's existence. Both of the refs originally in the article failed verification, and both a Google search and a search in the Iowa database of GNIS turn up nothing (the GNIS feature ID given in the article's infobox is actually the ID for Tennant, Iowa). Note that there is, apparently, a Country Ridge subdivision northwest of Cedar Rapids, but that's in Linn County and is a different place. Deor (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Michigan Technological University#History, selectively. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women at Michigan Technological University

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

As far as I can tell, fails GNG. Also reads like an essay and I can't identify why it should be on Wikipedia. SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources can be put inline, a fraction of this can be merged to Michigan Technological University. Otherwise, delete. BD2412 T 20:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Michigan Technological University#History, probably to a new subsection. The only useful sources seem to be the 2004 Nordberg article (which I can't access) and this 2019 Riippa article. Given the lack of independence of the "Alumni News", this is probably not enough to support a full article that meets WP:GNG. (There may be high-quality independent sources available in the Copper Country Historical Collections, which is mentioned in the existing sources.) The details about Nada J. Fenton seem interesting and notable, if they could be verified; unfortunately, not much came up in a search. Suriname0 (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Michigan Technological University#History per Suriname0.4meter4 (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Michigan Technological University#History.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Hicks (professor)

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

Don't see evidence she meets WP:NACADEMIC. Teaching award doesn't look notable, and can't find any sourcing for the "Outstanding Educator of America" claim. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Outstanding Educators of America was apparently a Who's Who kind of publication in the 1970s, rather than an "award" per se. XOR'easter (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This Google Scholar search shows articles with lots of citations, although the page doesn't show an h-index. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citations make a borderline case for WP:PROF#C1 and the Osborne award, training award, and Grove lifetime membership are all national-level recognitions counting towards #C2. Together they add up to a keep for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She was president of a national professional organization ("She was elected president of the Groves Conference on Marriage and Family in 1993"). Article has been improved since this discussion started. Penny Richards (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Anti-Canadian sentiment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to try and establish consensus on an appropriate redirect/merge target or allow evidence to be presented that article meets WP:GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Steinar Albrigtsen

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Band member with one solo album on an obscure label, who later worked as a guitar teacher for children. Note that the article creator can't appear to defend this page (indefblocked). Geschichte (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, non-notable musician. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marisa Quinn

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

Potentially non notable actress. Tagged with {{notability}} since May 2012. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, lacks notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Roles do not satisfy WP:NACTOR, and not enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG or satisfy WP:ANYBIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global Boxing Union (GBU)

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

Non-notable boxing organisation. One of the many lightly-regarded organisations that award "world" championships. My before search didn't produce a single reliable source with even a hint of significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. ².O.^Boxing 19:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 19:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 19:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be another of boxing's many organizations. My search found no significant independent coverage of this organization. It appears in a number of lists of boxing organizations, but there's nothing to show that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CounterPath Corporation

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

Promotional article, flagged since 2016. Created by SPA. Was previously deleted at AFD as advertising created by an SPA and worthy of WP:TNT. According to the article talk page, it was recreated by an employee of the company, and not speedily deleted as a recreation against a deletion discussion, as it should have been. The WP:RS sourcing situation on CounterPath has not improved in the past five years - the article as it stands is entirely composed of press releases, and a WP:BEFORE shows only press releases and churnalism based on them - nothing meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it'd have to be shown with solid RSes. David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now. Indeed, the article needs work, and normally I would suggest merging into its parent company. However, its parent does not seem to have an article yet. However, there were public filings in the SEC database, which are reliable albeit not totally independent. This does appear to be a long-lived company at least with real customers etc. so maybe more could be found and a neutral article developed. W Nowicki (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ah yes, it's listed. But we do need at least some RS coverage - there is literally zero present in the article right now, and if the bad sources were culled there'd be literally no article - David Gerard (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and HighKing. No prejudice for the article to be undeleted and moved to draft if someone wants to work on it if quality RS is found later.4meter4 (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sow's ear effect

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

No evidence this phrase exists. All google hits are copied from the Wikipedia page. It is either a neologism WP:NEO or a dictionary definition WP:NAD. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be (possibly) a sporting term where there is no defensive play. No evidence that it is an economic term related to GDP or supply-side economics. As per nom, en-wi is not a dictionary, nor a thesaurus. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The phrase certainly exists, and it appears in a number of tertiary sources, including the Penguin Dictionary of Economics. The coverage doesn't go beyond a few sentences, but it does suggest that there might be more sources available: such a concept doesn't appear in a dictionary unless it's been thoroughly discussed in scholarly sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Old, unsourced, and I can't find any sources to support it. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck nduka-eze

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

I'm not seeing how this individual meets the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The sources provided are either not about him directly (rather about the organization he's involved with), or are trivial mentions (he is noted as being the prosecutor for someone accused of vandalism). I am unable to find significant discussion of him in multiple reliable sources. The previous AfD ended in a speedy deletion. ... discospinster _talk 18:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO in any event clearly states that an aggregate of references is a sufficient satisfaction of the criteria or significance for inclusion. However, I contend that there is sufficient direct reference to him and other aspects of mention in the article that satisfy the criteria on their own One of many links attached to the article clearly references him solely, for his role in representing the massacre victims. The individual is an important figure in this aspect of the war historiography https://www.sunnewsonline.com/nduka-eze-and-original-members-of-asaba-october-7/ The subject is a significant figure on the subject of representation of massacre victims, and ample reference to his role is contained in the references. The peripheral mention you cite is in respect of the Hirst case, which is not the sole basis of his inclusion. I strongly urge you to review this intended deletion He is cited significantly as Counsel to the massacre victims in links in the article, which is a highly significant role within the context of Nigerian Civil War History, of which I am a subject expert. Can I urge you once again to review the links. This article is neither promotional nor advertising. On the previous occasion, I was made aware of the deletion notice too late to respond to same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seal67 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added hyperlinks to the Asaba massacre and the Oputa Panel, in which he represented victims and survivors. This was one of the most important outcomes in Nigerian Civil War history - in that a State authority was compelled to acknowledge acts of unlawful violence against civilians. The victims, and their families number in 100's of thousands and the case was reported not just broadly in the Nigerian press but also reported in several global reference texts globally. I respectfully restate that there is nothing trivial about this event or indeed the individual responsible for the outcome i.e the subject of this article

Keep. This article clearly needs cleaning up but I think this individual is notable. I worked in Nigeria for several years, so perhaps I understand the culture better than many other editors.--Bduke (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with @Bduke on this one. While the article needs reorganization, this looks like a pretty important article so it should be kept.Dunutubble (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Guardian piece is particularly strong evidence of independent significant coverage; a source describing him as "the father of leftist nationalism" in Nigeria. I think that statement alone makes the subject pass criteria 2 of WP:ANYBIO. While many of the other sources are interviews, they are interviews in major media outlets that further confirm that assessment.4meter4 (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vartkess Knadjian

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

Non-notable businessman. Was dePRODded in 2015, so we're here. Not mentioned at Backes & Strauss and would likely be undue to mention one CEO in a three hundred year old company's history. BEFORE only indicates name drops in connection with the company, and an interview or two. Nothing to meet WP:BIO Star Mississippi 17:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Backes & Strauss where his name currently appears in the Infobox. I agree with the nominator that merging more information about this person into the article on his employer would unbalance it. A man with a job, in which role he has some coverage, but I am seeing no evidence that he has distinct biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is not met properly. Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Cartoons

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

This company and its principals were involved with some notable cartoons - but I cannot find any evidence to indicate they meet WP:ORG. There's a claim there that Tiny Toons won them (or Glen, it's unclear/unsourced) an Emmy, but with notability not being inherited I think this is a tough call. Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - well there's this - ProQuest 435996476. Nfitz (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nfitz mind some context for those of us without access? Thanks Star Mississippi 02:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a 1989 Toronto Star article about some local animation studios - this being one of them. You should be able to access using your Wikipedia Library account from this link. Nfitz (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you @Nfitz:. I apparently don't qualify (Sorry, your Wikipedia account doesn’t currently qualify to access The Wikipedia Library.) but hopefully others who see this discussion can access thanks to your expanded info. Star Mississippi 15:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - You surely do qualify @Star Mississippi:. The criteria for basic access (including Proquest) is any non-blocked editor with more than 500 edits, 10 edits in the last month, and have an account older than 6 months! I'd have assumed that most participating in AFD would be using this tool, at least for decades-old subjects! Nfitz (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks again Nfitz. I cleared cache and logged back in and this time get Permission denied. Sorry; you aren't allowed to do that. If you think your account should be able to do that, please email us about this error at wikipedialibrary@wikimedia.org or report it to us on Phabricator (?). Will send an email as I definitely meet the criteria you indicated. Star Mississippi 22:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For those without access, I'll attempt an overview. The article discusses the fact that Toronto's animation studios have never been busier and a bigger push should be made to reduce the amount of work being sent overseas. Various companies are name-checked including their current project(s) and in this vein, Kennedy Cartoons is mentioned and their current project is described. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since this is a company/organization, the relevant guideline is WP:NCORP. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability which includes content which is in-depth about the company and original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP per HighKing's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. No current delete votes and nominator withdrew in statement below. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Health Trust

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

Seems to be wholly unnotable, with next to no reliable sources discussing the trust, as well as a before search turning up nothing of relevance for sourcing. Seems to be heavily contributed to by editors with conflicts of interest. Perryprog (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Perryprog (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Perryprog (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perhaps a before search should include Proquest or newspapers.com. Here's some good sources - and the last two should have in Google: ProQuest 243825723, ProQuest 219441600 three, - okay, this one's a bit of a puff piece, but who can resist a headline. Nfitz (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, I did include a newspaper search and found nothing of relevance, but I can do a more thorough search when I wake back up. I unfortunately can't access either ProQuest article you linked, and it seems you linked the same thing for numbers three and four. The Calgary Herald source is useless for notability as it was paid for by the trust—this is stated both at the top and bottom of the article. Perryprog (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, Perryprog! Thanks, I fixed the link for four! And I missed the paid bit - and I wasn't particularly serious about that one. There's other Calgary Herald articles - in particular this one - ProQuest 243825723. You should be able to get access to Proquest through the Wikipedia Library. Nfitz (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, oh, awesome, I totally forgot Wikipedia Library included ProQuest. This document seems to be moderately okay although I don't think it's really significant coverage per WP:ORGDEPTH. Link four is probably the best here so far (I'm not sure why my searches didn't turn up any Calgary Herald stuff?), but it's also on its own. This still isn't close to being notable enough, as far as I can tell. (Even if you include the survey ProQuest article, it's still all from the Calgary Herald which isn't too desirable either.) Perryprog (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep ~~Weak Delete~~ Since this is an organization, the applicable guideline is WP:NCORP. Only one of the references posted by Nfitz above appears to meet the criteria for establishing notability. This ProQuest 243825723 reference starts out with a comment from the CEO but the rest of the article is in-depth and does not appear to be simple company boilerplate description. But the other references fail WP:NCORP in some form - either a simply business listing or no-indepth information on the company. Happy to revisit if someone turns up another reference but I'm unable to see anything other than announcements and passing mentions. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appears to be some coverage in this book, but I don't read French, so I can't comment on whether it supports notability in relation WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks 4meter4! Starting on page 158, there is a profile of a campaign run by the topic company called P.A.R.T.Y. (Prevent Alcohol and Risk-related Trauma in Youth) and although it does not have a lot of information about the topic company per se, in my opinion it just about squeaks it. I've changed my !vote accordingly. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @HighKing and 4meter4: oh, awesome! I think that's enough for me as well; I'm definitely swayed by your argument as well, HighKing. Perryprog (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak) keep/withdraw: thanks to both HighKing's and 4meter4's votes and comments, I'm convinced enough that the corporation is notable enough. Perryprog (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Tiregar (Artist)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Only has minor roles in several notable films, though even these do not have significant coverage in reliable sources. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 16:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 16:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 16:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 16:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The man has starred in several international films on Netflix, and the sites of the World News Agency abc (News), Cinema Blend (News) have named him as the main actor the cast list. He also had his first acting experience in an international film about Elly directed by Asghar Farhadi (Source). Maryam CNA (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Maryam CNA: These sources only contain trivial mentions of the subject, which are not enough to establish notability. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 17:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeeno: There were credible sources that you tried to hide and removed a collection of information about this person from Wikipedia. (Take a look at this page).Maryam CNA (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeeno: You tried to delete the person's pictures 1 Link 2 from Wikimedia so that you can prove your point on the talk page. Then nominate the person to delete the page so that you can trick Wikipedia administrators into deleting the article. This is not true at all. We are all on this site to improve and help. Everything about this person is real and mentioned on the biggest movie news sites, and all of his videos have been streamed on Netflix, Even if it is not the first role. You should not delete a page by trickery. Maryam CNA (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Everything about Mohammad Tiregar is real You can see everything in this (link). Thanks Maryam CNA (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Maryam CNA, I understand that you strongly disagree with the deletion of this article, but I would kindly ask you to assume good faith and read the relevant policies I have linked, before casting aspersions on me without reason. Such statements are personal attacks, and repeated violations may lead to a block.

I have no intention of misleading you with any of my edits. Other editors, such as John B123 at Talk:Mohammad_Tiregar_(Artist)#About Elly, have mentioned the lack of significant coverage on the subject in the sources you cited. I assume you have read this, since you then removed the comments without explaining why. The image deletion message was placed by a bot, because the images used on that article were taken from Tiregar's twitter page and not taken by you. This is a separate matter not related to the article's deletion. I apologize for any misunderstanding I may have caused, but I recommend you take another look at the general notability guidelines before you make your next reply. Thank you. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 21:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeeno: I did not insult you. According to Wikipedia rules, any article can be expanded and improved. I ask you to remove the delete tag so that we can improve the quality of the content by citing the source to expand this article with more resources. Thank you for replying. Maryam CNA (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Maryam CNA: Thank you for understanding. According to WP:EDITATAFD, you are encouraged to improve and expand the article while it is nominated for deletion, by addressing the points raised by other editors. The key thing I am concerned with here is that there is no significant coverage of the subject in the sources you cited. Both the Cinemablend and ABC sources you showed only mention Tiregar in a cast list, which is not significant coverage. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 21:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable.Brayan ocaner (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR currently. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Time will tell.4meter4 (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Uvere

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

Clear sign of self-promotion with the subject himself adding content. The existing sources are all promotional or interviews save for https://hmmagazine.com/moses-uvere-never-better/. I went and did WP:BEFORE and was not surprised to see the typical sources (Wikipedia, LinkedIn, music sites) but no RSes that discuss the subject. I was pleased to see an AllMusic mention https://www.allmusic.com/artist/moses-uvere-mn0002123927 but it was simply a database entry for the subject's 2009 album (no review). The rest of the results show a lot of Local coverage: nothing national or international. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional in tone, and does not meet WP:NMUSIC per nom. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable beyond a local hero. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5). — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Press Hit Play

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

Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG, can't see any reliable coverage available. NagalimNE (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NagalimNE (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I have nominated this article for CSD since this article was created by one of User:Philippinesfan sockpuppets. The account (User:Sone generation66) was already reported and blocked via WP:SPI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philippinesfan. -WayKurat (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per comments above. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WayKurat. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Greg James#Radio. Anyone is free to add important content to the article if necessary. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's What He Said (podcast)

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

Searching "That's What He Said" with a variety of keywords such as Greg James and Podcast yields almost no results. I searched Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News, Google News Archive, Newspapers.com, and the Internet Archive. The only source I found was this passing mention of the show on Kent Online. The current sources are all WP:SELFPUBLISHED or not independent of the subject. In an attempt to pursue WP:ATD I opened a discussion here for merging the article into the host's page, Greg James, and it was suggested that I bring this to an AfD instead. I also checked "what links here" and didn't see anything particularly useful, and I looked over the edit history and don't see any vandalism. I think I've pretty thoroughly done a WP:BEFORE. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:NMEDIA or WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NMEDIA and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greg James#Radio. Fails WP:GNG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Consensus not to delete. There is weak consensus to merge, but no consensus between Siliguri#Bus service and Bus service in Siliguri as a target. Declining to relist as deletion will not occur and this has been open for 6 weeks; please discuss the details of any specific merge proposal on the talk page (and tag Sikkim Nationalised Transport Bus Terminus (Siliguri) and Tenzing Norgay Bus Terminus). (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.C. Mittal Memorial Bus Terminus

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

NN bus station. Article gives no indication of anything that would make it notable. Sources do not meet WP:GNG - non-independent and/or non-trivial mentions. Searching does not turn up much more. WP:MILL bus station. MB 13:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MB 13:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MB 13:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In India, bus terminals are important. I added some news articles that suggest that some bus routes could be shifted to this terminal to reduce traffic congestion. Interestingly, this terminal was officially opened by Buddhadev Bhattacharya, the then chief minister of West Bengal. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improved since nomination by Eastmain. A major station which apparently has 28 bays. NemesisAT (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the sources cited, the more reliable ones contain only minimal mention of this bus station. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's my review of the sources:
  1. Sabmilega.com appears to be some kind of web directory filled with misspellings and odd capitalizations, and has only a couple of sentences about this terminal. Doubtful as a reliable source.
  2. https://www.telegraphindia.com/west-bengal/siliguri-eyes-traffic-revamp-before-festive-season/cid/1828706 This article] from The Telegraph (India) is a reliable source, yet has barely one sentence about this terminal: "Other proposals include shifting some buses to the PC Mittal Bus Terminus in Sevoke Road and developing a new bus stand at Tinbatti More on the city's southern tip."
  3. This article from The Statesman (India) is also a reliable source but has less than one relevant sentence: "The administration plans to shift the parking area (at Siliguri Junction) to Paribahan Nagar in Matigara, while buses running between Siliguri and Jalpaiguri will depart from the PC Mittal Bus Terminus."
  4. This article from The Telegraph (India) also contains less than one relevant sentence: "'Private buses bound for Calcutta and Bihar will be shifted to Paribahan Nagar, (in the northwest end of the city) while buses running between Siliguri and Jalpaiguri will depart from PC Mittal Bus Terminus (which is in the northeastern parts of Siliguri),' the chairperson said."
  5. 1001things.org does not appear to be a reliable source.
  6. This page is from a corporate web site discussing the corporation's corporate social responsibility projects, and is promotional rather than an independent source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Selective merge to Siliguri#Transport#Bus service per WP:CHEAP. Not independently notable as it lacks enough significant coverage in independent RS to meet GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article from The Telegraph (a reliable source according to the above comment) focuses on the bus station and thus helps establish notability in my opinion. NemesisAT (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an important terminal with enough reliable sources. Lightburst (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Said sources should be identified and analysed to show they meet the criteria of GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Siliguri#Bus service. It seems like everything noteworthy that can be said about this bus station can fit in a paragraph in the article where it is already mentioned. We really don't need an article saying that a bus terminal has parking and a restroom, or even a bookstore. BD2412 T 21:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternately, we could create an article along the lines of Bus service in Siliguri, and merge Tenzing Norgay Bus Terminus, Sikkim Nationalised Transport Bus Terminus (Siliguri), and P.C. Mittal Memorial Bus Terminus there. BD2412 T 21:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I would personally prefer if they are not merged, as I find separate articles easier to search for (both within Wikipedia and through external search engines) and you lose the cordinate info and "nearby places" info available on the mobile site too. NemesisAT (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP is not a travel guide; mentioning restrooms and the like is unencyclopedic. Would support either merge suggested by BD2412. MB 19:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BD2412. I understand NemesisAT response, but we have WP:INDISCRIMINATE (coordinates et cetera). — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BD2412. Sources given dont meet WP:GNG for a standalone article but the information could be kept as part of in the new article Bus service in Siliguri Vanteloop (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Reklaw

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

First, I moved the article to draft space, but the author has moved it back to article space. Then I tagged it with A7. The subject has one credit for a pre-production Turkish film, and, as far as I can tell, is a low-level racing car driver. Unfortunately, an editor removed the tag, so here we are. Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as noted. No significant claims of notability. Involvement in a future film, and some racing results - none of which look notable or particularly good (finished first! of two people). Note: there was a significant amount of black hat seo sites included as "references" on an earlier version of the article. Most have been removed, but there are likely more. I don't see any of the required disclaimers for the two single-purpose accounts that have been adding to the article, either. I'm sure it was just a coincidence that they stumbled into all of those paid placements. Kuru (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The subject is well known in Latin America, the UK, and Turkey

The article is well-referenced, written, and formatted.

The article sources as shown enough WP:GNG we can't judge notability based on the wins. There is a lot about Sportif pages here who never won anything. https://news.google.com/search?q=Sam%20Reklaw&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen and most of artice who talk about him (Sam Walker) are in spanish.

The film is listed on the IMDB website https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14227658/

And I'm here I'm the user who started the article User: MrSamContributor There is nothing about (stumbled into all of those paid placements).— Note to closing admin: MrSamContributor (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

As someone from the UK who lives in Latin America and follows motor sport, I can say the subject is definitely not well known in either the UK or Latin America. Richard3120 (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Actually I think people are having a hard time judging his notability because of the different name. It looks like everyone is searching "Sam Reklaw" which on google brings up recent PR mainly to do with film and little to do with racing.

People need to bear in mind that his real name is Sam Walker, and that's the name he raced under, also the races were in Latin America, so they are in Spanish. This search (google colombia) brings alot of hits and his name is in alot of them, also alot of hits on google images here What an admin mentioned above "finished first! of two people" I looked at the result and he actually finished 1st of 4 people IN CLASS. but overall 3rd out of 27. Whether that can be considered "good" or not is pretty irrelevant because we have no idea know what rules and regulations that they race under. The fact still remains that he does meet WP:NMOTORSPORT because he raced in imporant national championships, and the most prestigious race in the country - 6 Hours Bogota on 3 occasions and achieved respectable results. I invite everyone to look at the foreign google links I posted above (which is new information I discovered) and then have another think.— Sumneeb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"The fact still remains that he does meet WP:NMOTORSPORT because he raced in imporant national championships".

No he didn't. The championship you claim as being the most prestigious is so unimportant it doesn't even have an article on this Wikipedia.T v x1 22:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NMOTORSPORTS.T v x1 22:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remark As mention the user above the subject : Sam Reklaw | Sam Walker

- Received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. - Sam Reklaw has driven in a race in a fully professional series. A fully professional series where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series. - He has competed in a series or race of worldwide or national interest - Has been team principal for a team in a major racing series - Hold or have held a significant motorsports record, such as a land speed record.

Check the links and double-check. He is most qualified WP:GNG WP:NMOTORSPORT for a Wikipedia page than most of his peers that I've seen listed on the platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSamContributor (talk • contribs) 19:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORTS.4meter4 (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Weiler

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

A non-notable independent musician that fails WP:MUSICBIO. I've been able to find three sources about her, [1], [2], and [3]. The first two are just interviews with local newspapers about the upcoming release of one of her albums, and the third one is about a yoga studio she owns. (Also, source 2 was published on 9/11, which I thought was interesting) - Poydoo can talk and edit 17:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - Poydoo can talk and edit 17:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - Poydoo can talk and edit 17:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. - Poydoo can talk and edit 17:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet required criteria. Google search offers almost nothing, besides some promotional sites.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 21:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. There is no coverage available for this particular individual to warrant a Wikipedia article. NagalimNE (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP. scope_creep^Talk 08:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TMRO

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The Wired article contains less than one hundred words of content dedicated to the subject. The Twin City Live source is a permanently dead video with less written prose than the Wired article. The Star Tribune article is mostly WP:INTERVIEW material and is therefore a primary source. Searching for sources that aren’t already being cited yields trivial mentions from NBC News, BusinessInsider (WP:BI), and Space.com but there are no in-depth sources that would demonstrate WP:SIGCOV or even provide useful information for writing an Encyclopedia article without WP:ORIGINAL research. The Space Frontier source says that the subject received the “2010 Best Presentation of Space Award”. The Space Frontier Foundation does have a Wikipedia page, but it only contains bare URLs to sources that, at a glance, don’t appear to demonstrate WP:N. I don’t think this article would qualify for WP:WEBCRIT despite the award, but either way WEBCRIT states that “In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for content meeting one or both of these criteria,” and I’m not seeing independent and reliable secondary sources that demonstrate notability. Jami Higginbotham, Cariann Higginbotham, Jared Head, and Ryan Caton don't have Wikipedia articles so there isn't really a place to merge the content. It's also worth noting that even if the hosts or guests were notable this show doesn't WP:INHERIT that notability. If someone is able to scrounge up some sources or if the award is notable enough to save the article it needs some cleanup considering only two out of the fifteen paragraphs in the body of the article even contain references.

I previously nominated this for deletion here, but there was WP:NOQUORUM and no prejudice against a speedy renomination. I also forgot to include in the previous nomination the fact that there is an article dedicated to a List of TMRO Space episodes, which should probably be deleted alongside this article. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond an article from Wired. SBKSPP (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. Lembit Staan (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 11:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Appleberry

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

Record producers don't get an article because they were the mixing engineer in the credits of a song that charted. Otherwise, he fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Mottezen (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very few credits to his name. Zero sourcing found beyond basic-level interviews, fan wikis, song databases, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shiri Spear

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

Insufficient significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. JTtheOG (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are a lot of trivial mentions, but not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show that they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination and above. Indepth coverage from WP:RS is necessary to qualify this subject for GNG. NagalimNE (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice against reopening. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 06:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roy (Fire Emblem)

AfDs for this article:

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

As much as I am a fan of Fire Emblem, there are some characters who simply aren't notable, and Roy is one of them. Since my warnings were ignored/removed several times about this being non-notable, I have no choice but to nominate for AfD.

Roy is notorious for being in Smash Bros. and... well, that's kind of about it. Since his game was never localized, very few in the Western gaming press have ever analyzed his character from the standpoint of his appearances in the actual game he was in. The parts of the reception about his Smash Bros. appearances are also trivial mentions and listicles, and the reception overall is heavily WP:REFBOMBed with little substantial coverage.

Is the stuff about his Smash Bros. appearances notable enough to mention in Fire Emblem: The Binding Blade or even Fire Emblem? Sure, but this does not merit a standalone article on Roy. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator is essentially saying that they are a fan of the Fire Emblem series, so therefore, they are in the best position to be a gatekeeper and judge what topics in this area is or isn't notable, or whether it should get a standalone article on Wikipedia or not. I note that no definite argument was ever advanced based on an analysis of whether the sources meet WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV, only passing allusions or handwaves to trivial mentions; while we can all debate on whether the content from the article's cited sources constitute WP:SIGCOV, many of the sources cited in the article make a credible claim of significance with regards to the character's real world impact. Why is it relevant that the game the character starred in was never localized, when his first appearance was in a Smash game, which makes a case that this character is perhaps more closely associated to the Smash franchise then any other Fire Emblem character? Since the nominator indicated that they started this AfD because their "warnings" about notability were ignored by multiple editors, I conclude that this is a purely subjective WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination on what the nominator thinks should be notable, and is not a valid rationale for deletion under this site's deletion policy. I also note that this page has already been reviewed by a NPP editor, so if there truly is an objectively insurmountable issue with notability or significant coverage, I'd expect this article to be redirected or AfD'd at the first instance as part of the NPP reviewer's patrol activities. Haleth (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point of me mentioning that "I am a fan of Fire Emblem" is showing that I WANT this page to be kept, so there simply needs to be presented evidence that Roy is notable. So far that has not been shown in this AfD, only vague assertions that he's probably notable, but the sources just need to be found. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That does not change the fact that your nomination rationale is not rooted in existing policy or guidelines, but a subjective opinion of what should be notable. AfD is for article for deletion, not article for dicussion. AfD is for when you genuinely believe that the issues with the extent of sourcing for the topic, not simply confined to what is found on the article, is insurmountable. Your claim that you want to keep this article, by nominating it for deletion, is frankly contradictory, and also deletion is not cleanup. Since you claimed that you actually want this article to exist or to fix it somehow, per WP:ATD it would be more appropriate had you simply voiced your concerns on a talk page about the removal of your notability tag by another editor. When multiple sources like Shacknews have articulated the historicity within the industry behind the character's introduction in Melee, clearly attributing it as the reason why the Fire Emblem series is released outside of Japan in the first place, when the publisher's original intent was to promote an exclusive domestic release of a game that is never localized as you have pointed out, I don't think these assertions are at all vague as you are saying. As Daranios have noted, quoting WP:WHYN, there is adequate material to write a short article here. Haleth (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with the disruptive WP:Wikilawyering (specifically the part about "Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express"). I think it's fairly common sense to see that my argument is that the page is not notable, i.e. that it fails WP:GNG, even if I did not spell it out. My statement that "I want to keep the article" does not mean that I think this article should be kept even if it had no notability whatsoever. It was in direct response to your assertion that since I didn't like the character, I was nominating it for deletion (which is false.) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I take umbrage to your allegation that I am being disruptive. My response is directly addressing your original rationale, which specifically did not articulate an argument based on WP:GNG or that you have done a WP:BEFORE, lack any proper source analysis but instead focuses on the lack of localization of the game the character starred in or the alleged sparseness of opinions from western critics, or how the claims of significance made by reliable sources are trivial mentions at best. I never said anything about you not liking the character, that is irrelevant, my quote of WP:IDONTLIKEIT refers to your subjective opinion that an article about the topic should not exist based on your personal experiences of the series. I note that you made a point to bring up the fact you are a fan on your own initiative, and using the same common sense principle you are asserting, that appears to be the only underlying principle expressed by your nomination rationale. I suggest that we agree to disagree, and let the community decide whether your original AfD rationale, or that your subsequent arguments should be accepted based on an appeal to our collective common sense, is justified. Haleth (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears in multiple notable games and is the lead in Fire Emblem: The Binding Blade. Eulenbär (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So what? WP:NOTINHERITED. It doesn't matter how many notable works something appears in, it has to stand up for itself - or otherwise be merged/redirected to such works. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a fair-sized, referenced reception section there, so this should satisfy WP:WHYN and therefore WP:GNG. What would be the benefit of deletion? Daranios (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether "there is a fair sized reception section" is not what we are arguing here, it is a question of the quality of the sources which are almost unilaterally trivial in nature. One cannot simply dredge up literally any mention of a character and call it significant coverage. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: I agree that significance cannot be built from trivial blocks. But it can be built from non-trivial information, the length of the individual sources is a secondary concern. And I'd say if a character is well or badly received and why is not trivial information because, well, that's the heart of a Reception section. And as another example, if a character is a cause for a game to be released internationally instead of only nationally, seems rather important to me, too. Daranios (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some of these sources are just terrible. There's an entire half-paragraph about "sword fighter character archetypes" where the subject isn't even mentioned in two of the three sources and the last one simply lumps the character in with several others. It seems like half the rest of the reception sources are just trivial mentions from character ranking lists. This one in particular is one I would describe as absolute trash, "The only Roy we want to see in Smash is Roy Koopa Jr., the Koopaling. Who is this sad fraud supposed to be? He’s not even a turtle!" Taking a fluff joke and trying to rewrite it as a critique shows the lack of substance in this article. TTN (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We know that there's another source that are "trash", but Roy has been cited by the multiple sources. It would definitely pass notability guidelines. 103.100.101.42 (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly a noteworthy character. His inclusion as a fighter in the Smash Bros. series alone already makes him one of the more well-known videogame characters by default. It may well be the case that the sources on the page could be improved, but there's absolutely no way deletion would be suitable here. The Œstrogen8r_{...𝖙𝖊𝖑𝖑 𝖒𝖊} 13:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please, then, give your WP:THREE best sources that prove without a doubt that Roy is notable. Otherwise, that is just an assertion with no evidence behind it. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise that I can't spare enough time to do this, but frankly the character of Roy would seem so obviously noteworthy to me that if WP:THREE were somehow not satisfied in this case, I'd be more inclined to understand this as a failure of WP:THREE than of Roy. The Œstrogen8r_{...𝖙𝖊𝖑𝖑 𝖒𝖊} 16:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Shacknews and Destructoid pieces are good enough for me, so that's two satisfactory sources. I'd also like to point out that WP:THREE is an essay, not policy; all policy requires is "sources," which I believe is satisfied here. Mlb96 (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THREE is an essay, but the principle behind it is a policy. While the Shacknews article is probably the one best source, the Destructoid article is a simple listing of his combat moves in a game he isn't the main character of. So if that's really the 2nd best source, it obviously doesn't pass WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the use of this source is any different then this writeup, also by a Destructoid writer, which currently occupies an entire paragraph in the reception section for Corrin. If we examine both writeups together, I suppose the key point to take away are the author's personal opinions about the characters, not the walls of gamecruft text that dominates the articles' prose? Also, Mlb96, Daranios, I have since added a couple more sources to the article and cleaned up the prose further. Let me know what you think. Haleth (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 18:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Fire Emblem characters or a relevant section. The reception series begins with "Roy's appearance in Melee, alongside Marth's, introduced the Fire Emblem series to players outside of Japan. It was in part because of his inclusion that Nintendo began localizing and releasing Fire Emblem games internationally, beginning with the seventh title in the series". This got me curious re the sources. [4] just mentions him in passing twice, once saying he is the main character, once mentioning his father's character.[5] mentions him seven times, but the coverage is not significant, it just confirms such a character exists and was 'new' at some point in the franchise history. [6] is even worse, which leaves [7]. That one is fine, but is Official Nintendo Magazine independent here? Most other refs are either not independent or contain passing mentions. [8] is in-depth - if we can call three or so paragraphs in-depth - but it concerns only his appearance in one game. In the end I am seeing no reliable in-depth coverage, this is just a humanoid Pokemon like a dozen we merged and redirected in the last few weeks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No dedicated article covering a List of Fire Emblem characters exist on Wikipedia. There is no suitable merge or redirect target since the identified sources clearly establish that the character is independently notable, though the aggregate coverage from English sources is a tad short on character analysis. That is still not an issue as the article's present content is lengthier then what we would typically consider to be stub-length. Haleth (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Also, did this need to be relisted? Captain Galaxy 15:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC
Weak keep. With only two quality sources, this article would preferably exist within a List of Fire Emblem characters. However, in the absence of such a list and with no valid merge target; keep is a better choice over deletion.4meter4 (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of no list or valid merge target, I believe that Fire Emblem characters as a whole aren't really notable enough to warrant creating a List of Fire Emblem characters page. Thus, I feel like merging isn't really a good option when the theoretical list wouldn't have enough coverage. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Robert Hornsby

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

Looks like a family history project copied from somewhere, nothing to suggest that they are WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly copied from a 1917 newspaper obituary [9]. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another obit [10]. 23:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete. In addition to a possible WP:CV, and a complete lack of IRS sources, the subject simply does not appear to be notable. Fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrils (talk • contribs) 04:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:BIO. Deus et lex (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Enough sources have been presented to show that the article is capable of being expanded well beyond its current stub. I strongly suggest doing that before considering a merge. The expanded page may well be unsuitable to merge for UNDUE concerns. SpinningSpark 14:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Granby Telephone & Telegraph

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

Fairly fails to meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Should be merged with Otelco Asketbouncer (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See this reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Having seen Eastmain's source (and he hasn't actually proffered a ground upon which to keep, valid or otherwise), I'm entirely underwhelmed. CORPDEPTH still applies, MULTSOURCES still applies, and WP:ORG and WP:GEOSCOPE certainly applies. A valedictory for the small town telephone exchange from the local paper scarcely meets notability standards, especially given the sub-stub of an article.
Speaking of a merger, there's nothing TO merge that isn't already in the other article. Ravenswing 21:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company is discussed in this historical book and this historical book on Granby by reputable academic publishers, and its notable for being one of the few surviving small telephone companies in the United States as stated in the first source. While not exactly independent, this United States Congress report could be used to source and expand content as well. Ultimately, there's enough here to establish SIGCOV and the company's interest to historians writing on the city of Granby is clear.4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~Delete or Merge~~ as per noms suggestion. Based on the sources found to date and my own searching, I cannot find any references that satisfy the criteria for establishing notability. ~~The two books mentioned by 4meter4 above are self-published and therefore fail as they are not reliable sources.~~ The reference by Eastmain (as noted by Ravenswing) fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND as most of the info is provided by a company employee, no indication of any "Independent Content". Topic therefore fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing Neither source is self published. Both books are published by Arcadia Publishing which is widely respected for its publications of reliable local histories and academic textbooks. Both sources are high quality reference works published by a respected academic publisher and constitute independent and significant coverage. 4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again Arcadia bought a number of companies, some of which were self-publishing or self-distributing companies but Arcadia isn't. Thanks for the correction 4meter4. I don't believe the books do anything other than confirm the existence of the telephone company and I've modified my !vote to merge instead. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is proposing merger rather than deletion but the proposed target would not be an improvement. There are plenty of sources, as noted noted above and so WP:ATD seems quite feasible and preferable, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 13:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a clear consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Al Ameri

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

Previously deleted on CSD A7 grounds, has since been recreated. Listing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Wedel

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

Does not pass WP:NPROF. A search does turn up lots of reliable sources which mention the subject, but all of them are passing mentions, with no significant coverage of the subject. AryKun (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=AElExF8AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra Citations 1793, h-index 22, i10-index 27. And at the Library of Congress: this search Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Reasonable citations in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain.4meter4 (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no support for this proposal. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FlightGlobal

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG criteria for Organisation/Corporation. No notability, references are primary sourced and major WP:COI in that FlightGlobal Marketing is a major contributor of this article LukeWWF (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see how article creator User:MilborneOne has a COI here (nor other editors involved in the article). This is an increasingly popular information for aerospace (see NGRAM with the rise from their 2006 foundation). There are used significantly by others as can be seen in google scholar, filtered google news (-flightglobal.com), and google books). This is one of these situations in which finding sources is made difficult by the sheer amount of sources that are citing and quoting FlightGlobal.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article creator is a Wikipedia admin and editor with decades of good standing and not in a COI as falsely claimed above. An apology is clearly warranted for that accusation. The article has third party refs and meets WP:GNG. As noted in the article, the subject of the article won a major award, so clearly notable in aviation and journalist circles. - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Let's remain on topic of AfD and not the author. Being an Administrator does not nullify AfD requests from users: This is not Wikipedia policy. You will see User:MilborneOne has a lot of good contributions, but also a few deleted articles under similar procedure. LukeWWF (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Created by a Wikipedia admin who has done years of useful contributions. It Passes GNG with reliable coverage available. NagalimNE (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: @LukeWWF: I see you have amended your COI claim above to now indicate major WP:COI in that FlightGlobal Marketing is a major contributor of this article. I would like to point out that this is also false. While User:FlightGlobal Marketing made two spammy COI edits to the article when it was first started, they were immediately reverted and their current net contributions to the article are exactly nil. You can note they were also blocked from editing in 2016 due to Promotional username, promotional edits. - Ahunt (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Correct, I updated my comment for clarity. If you conduct a LinkedIn search for staff at FlightGlobal and reference users editing this article you will see a major COI over time. MilborneOne may be the creator but he is not the COI I am referring to. I was hoping those replying to this AfD would do some due dilligence on ALL contributors. Thank you. LukeWWF (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Please read the current actual article text - it is neutral and factual, there is no COI text there now, unlike for one day in 2016 as I noted above. There is no valid COI argument to be made for deleting this. - Ahunt (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as originator of what is an article on a major and respected online aviation website to complement printed works from the same organisation it clearly passes notability guidleines. The COI issue has been delt with by others above. Not really relevant but of the 16 deleted articles (out of 1730 I have created in 15 years) none relate to similar organisations or websites so a bit misleading and hardly relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Major name in the aerospace media sector and owner of the established Flight International magazine. Merging FlightGlobal into Flight International wouldn't make much sense either, in case anyone was going to propose that. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with all keep voters above. Webmaster862 (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Game Na Game Na!

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

No sources and GNG. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN where it is mentioned. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeong Da-woon

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

Footballer that has had an article since 2007 but only seems to have played in the semi-pro Korea National League, which is not listed at WP:FPL. Only English result in searches is his Transfermarkt profile, which doesn't confer notability and has one cup appearance, which doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL requirements as at least one team involved was not playing in an FPL. Google News Korean search and DDG Korean search both return a lot of results but it's all about unrelated people with a similar name. Most results appear to be about a UFC person. No evidence that the footballer of this name ever garnered significant coverage, so likely fails WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG & NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination, fails WP:GNG & WP:NFOOTBALL JW 1961^Talk 19:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 anti-Pakistan protests

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Anti Pakistan protests are common in Afghanistan, but there's no indication that anything that happened this year stands apart and this doesn't really rise to a notable level.. This is an attempt to use Wikipedia for propaganda. Saqib (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID and WP:GNG. I agree that "Anti Pakistan protests are common in Afghanistan" but not in Iran, US, Germany, Austria, Canada, etc. over a particular reason. Shankargb (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To 2021 Afghan protests per my original edit. The article doesn't have enough to stand on it's own and this part of the larger protests in Afghanistan since the Taliban took over. The grievances of the protesters is over Pakistan's support for the Taliban not just the fact this is it's own anti-Pakistan protests. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan protests are specific to Taliban rule, while anti-Pakistan protests are specific to Pakistan's interference in Afghanistan. They are different than each other. Both subjects have got significant amount of coverage, independent of each other. GenuineArt (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The protests are taking place in Afghanistan for the reason concerning Afghanistan's latest debacle. They are not individual protests. They are part of something larger. The protests are against the Taliban and it's supporter, Pakistan. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shankargb and also per my rationale above. GenuineArt (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – article doesn't meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA as there is no historical significance of these protest and topic doesn't have WP:DEPTH coverage. Artt also doesn't meet WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV and reliability of sources can be further argued (reliability of Indian sources about Pakistan and vice versa is nearly zero; they usually publish highly politicized and propaganda info to please their audiences). WP:RAPID doesn't really apply here. Editor arguing WP:RAPID, need to look at WP:DELAY too. Radioactive (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abdulhaseebatd:} I am sure an undisclosed paid COI editor like you has no knowledge of the policies you are citing. The subject meets all criteria listed at WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Existence of sources like Al-Jazeera, SCMP, IranIntl, and other thousands of sources providing significant coverage to this subject on frequent basis easily debunks your entirely misleading misrepresentation of sources and policies. AnM2002 (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AnM2002: bro, you better learn WP: CIVIL. Keeping uncivilized behavior can lead to your block. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per Radioactive (talk) rationale above. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ngrewal1: But Radioactive, an undisclosed paid editor, is simply misleading others as clear from his comment. AnM2002 (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Struck double vote. AnM2002 (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to 2021 Afghan protests fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA. No evidence of notability. Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thepharoah17: It meets every single criteria laid out at WP:EVENTCRITERIA:

Criteria 1: "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect." It meets "general notability guideline" and WP:LASTING since it is getting significant coverage for months.[11][12]
Criteria 2: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).": With Al-Jazeera, SCMP, Iran Intl, Hindustan Times, and many others covering the subject, this is a no-brainer.
Criteria 3: "Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.": The significant coverage spanning large variety of sources is already evidenced by the present version of the article and my above explanation.
Criteria 4: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.": Again, a no-brainer since the subject is getting significant coverage for months.

In sum, you will benefit from actually reading WP:EVENTCRITERIA. AnM2002 (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage you're referring to refers only to the coverage of a particular protest immediately after the protest ends. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE says "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Is there evidence of coverage of an event (eg protest) months after that particular event ended? I don't see that for now.VR _talk 18:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources covering the protests apart from those mentioned for a mere idea. All of the recent events surrounding the aftermath of the War in Afghanistan are relatively new developments, though that does not mitigate their notability because they fulfill the necessary requirement to achive their own article. These protests are a phenomenon that is occurring all over the globe for a specific reason. This article passes WP:GNG for sure. AnM2002 (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my explanations above. AnM2002 (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Clearly distinct from 2021 Afghan protests as many of these aren't happening in Afghanistan. Also seems notable as far. Maybe the article needs a better title though. Super Ψ Dro 13:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Afghan_protests has an international section.VR _talk 19:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. NOTNEWS does not apply because the protests are going on for more than several months. Subject is apparently more notable than many other similar protest articles that we have, like 2014 anti-war protests in Russia. ~~ Agletarang
Keep: Prima facie meets WP:GNG. — Vaibhavafro ^💬 09:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge I think that this should be merged into Anti-Pakistan sentiment MullahBalawar (talk) 7:25, 11 September 2021 (PTC)Strike sockpuppet. Shankargb (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, receiving coverage for three months now. The misrepresentation of WP:EVENTCRITERIA here by delete supporters is grossly unconvincing. TheRollBoss001 (talk)
Delete/Merge to 2021 Afghan protests. This looks like an unnecessary fork (possibly even a WP:POVFORK). Protests against Pakistan almost always happen as part of protests against the Taliban. Is there any protest against Pakistan that did not condemn the Taliban? These are both essentially the same topic. Once merged, the anti-Pakistan element of these protests should be given WP:DUE weight at 2021 Afghan protests.VR _talk 19:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and independent subject that has gained coverage independent of much newer protests limited to Afghanistan. Any suggestion for merge/delete/redirect will only WP:CENSOR the importance of this distinct subject. Shrikanthv (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently meets WP:N. I would say the nomination seems highly inaccurate even if compared with the version of that time. Abhi88iisc (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2021 Afghan protests as outlined and explained above by VR. Ngrewal1 (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article cites no credible international sources about the "anti-Pakistani protests". Most of the coverage seems to be about street protests organised by Afghan nationals in India, as reported amongst Indian sources. Per WP:NOTNEWS, an event needs to have lasting significance to be deemed notable which is absent in this case. The protests that were held within Afghanistan are already covered in 2021 Afghan protests. The rest are small, non-notable and haven't gathered much traction from the mainstream media coverage I've tried searching. Mar4d (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Utter falsehood.. Even a casual glance at 2021_anti-Pakistan_protests#References shows the article is based on a multiplicity of WP:RS including the Al Jazeera, Asia Times, Iran International, Hindustan Times, India Today clearly demonstrating the extent of coverage that the RS have accorded to the subject, which involves vehement calls for sanctioning Pakistan for being an unrepentant patron of Talibani terrorism, and the same is not confined to one country but has steadily pervaded to almost all the continents. Hell, it even cites the Pakistani publication Dawn, and that most convincingly betrays the hollowness of your specious and misleading argument. 2409:4050:2E0A:42EE:25CD:F8DE:B4E2:5371 (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect The ant-Pakistan protests are not focused on Pakistan. They are anti-Taliban protests with the secondary focus being Pakistan, so this article should be merged/redirected into 2021 Afghan protests. RealKnockout (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. They started before 2021 Afghan protests which are limited to Afghanistan. "Anti-Pakistan" protests seek sanction against Pakistan while "Afghan protests" only want end of Taliban's rule. Anti-Pakistan protests can't be "secondary" to something that started much later. Shankargb (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RealKnockout, that's hogwash. RS unequivocally tells you that the Afghans protestors have unrelentingly and vehemently sought sanctions on Pakistan for its unrepentant patronship of Talibani terrorism. Frankly, your comment makes no sense. 2409:4050:2E0A:42EE:25CD:F8DE:B4E2:5371 (talk) 07:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are they not isolated incidents rather than a global protest movement against Pakistan? WP:NOTNEWS exists. RealKnockout (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not isolated but frequently covered by range of reliable sources. 2020 Libyan protests, Protests against Iraq War and thousands others were not organized by single entity either. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here. Shankargb (talk)

Keep - Protests pre-date 2021 Afghan protests and are notable given the widespread coverage. Protests here are particularly aimed at opposing Pakistan's interference in Afghanistan. Maybe a better title is needed. Mukt (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these protests received widespread coverage apart from Indian news outlets and they were all attended by Afghans and Indian citizens a non notable event and the page it full of Indian sources further reinforcing my feelings this is just some point scoring and an attempt to make an article out of nothing plus it seems the people arguing for it to be kept are from India which indicates its not notable outside of Indian circles it seems very clearly like an WP:POVFORK) of the main protest article. Himachal78 (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ASPERSIONS. It is clear that either you are misleading yourself or misleading others. No way Al-Jazeera, Radio Free Europe Radio Free Europe, Dawn and many other sources are "Indian news outlet", nor they are limited to "Indian circles". POVFORK argument is also nonsensical because there can be no other page where this content could be added to. To say that protests would have become more notable if they were not attended by non-Afghans and non-Indians is also absurd. Shankargb (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With respect you're arguments are nonsensical all of this information can be added to this 2021 Afghan protests article wheres CNN/BBC etc reporting this mainstream Western media is not reporting this protests where many of these protests are taking place its a bit odd that Indian media are fixated on it is it not? monumental event for one group with only 3 non Indian sources reporting mostly due to the noise made by Indian media which is notorious for its fake news and propaganda. This is purely a WP:POVFORK and is clearly a big thing for Indian media since the page is dominated by those sources and the keep votes prove it see WP:NOTNEWS. This is not a globally significant event even if the Indian media which is known for its propaganda, fake news and exaggerated reporting against Pakistan is trying to make it out to be the fact you took your time to reply proves to me only one group believes this deserves a separate article I believe this just boils down to petty point scoring. Only sane option is that is should be merged with the 2021 Afghan protest article or deleted. Himachal78 (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be merged to 2021 Afghan protests and it would be WP:CENSORSHIP to agree with such a nonsensical move, given there are clearly more than "only 3 non Indian sources" providing significant coverage to this subject, the above attempts aimed at deceiving others won't work. Per WP:RS, personal vendetta against reliable Indian sources is nothing but WP:DE laid bare. AnM2002 (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By some accounts you are known to be uncivil so I will keep it short. It is Nonsensical to even claim its censorship it needs to be merged or deleted just a pov fork and undue pushed by a certain group to satisfy their ego plus if by reliable you mean using video game footage as evidence for an airstrike? Just some friendly advice please stop littering the vote with your nonsensical messages under each Delete vote it just exposes your insecurities the outcome will be decided eventually stop harassing others with regurgitated arguments you use over and over again. Himachal78 (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How any of these off-topic and misleading explanations justify the clear disruptive editing including the editor's reckless misrepresentation of sources ? Which "video game footage" are they even talking about ? This article has nothing to do with that. I will consider this yet another misleading remark from them as part of their broader WP:DE. And just for the record the editor's tone points to their Incivility and Disruptive intent which has no place on Wikipedia.AnM2002 (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the above message by AnM2002 at all but I will remind all those who are frantically replying to any delete vote (including that ip account which strangely resembles a certain user) your attempts to divert and mislead are pointless the decision will be made soon lets just leave it at that I have no issue with the decision of the closing admin whether its kept or deleted or merged I gave my view that's all stop harassing delete voters please. Himachal78 (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is definitely notable and verifiability is not an issue given the diversity of sources. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is notable, it meets WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE criteria —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How does WP:LASTING and by extension, WP:GEOSCOPE apply here? These are isolated protests against the Taliban with a secondary focus on Pakistan. These also will not really lead to anything much, per WP:NOTNEWS. RealKnockout (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is irrelevant and you are very wrong with claiming that these 3 months long running protests don't meet WP:LASTING. Read the guidelines before you cite them. Shankargb (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: These protest are notable and provided sources are reliable. This article passes WP:GNG and WP:EVENT Nitesh003 (TALK) 13:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A few of the sources, such as this one (it only contains 2 references to anti-Pakistan sentiment), seem to only contain minor coverage of protests. Could someone evaluate the sources and remove sources with very minor references to anti-Pakistan protests? If we considered every protest with even a hint of anti-Pakistan sentiment relevant, this article would be an FA. RealKnockout (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks relevant and significant enough for inclusion. BTW, discussion at AfD should be only about the notability of the subject. Shankargb (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I discounted the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hamid Khan (politician)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Abdul Hamid Khan (politician)

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

Non notable politician Biskut Merry (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is someone who passes WP:GNG. I think the article is more about him than the organization he leads or used to lead, Balawaristan National Front Hameed Group. At least one other group also uses the name Balawaristan National Front. The article is written from the perspective of the Pakistan government and leaves many questions unanswered, such as why he would "surrender" to Pakistan security officials. The article has a long and troubled history with abundant edit-warring. Editors may find it helpful top review the history of the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The entire article contains only nine sources, most of them being about his organization Balawaristan National Front, rather than himself. The sources also give very less info about the person. MeshaNigo (talk) 3:26, 9 September, 2021
Keep or at least refactor to cover his organization. At least one of them should have an article. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"At least one of them should have an article and refactor to cover his organization". What kind of reasons are these for keep? MeshaNigo (talk) 3:55, 9 September 2021

When you have more experience than you claim to have, you'll understand. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has received significant coverage in a variety of sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note that both Biskut Merry (talk · contribs) and Meshanigo (talk · contribs) are block-evading sockpuppets: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SajidMir2. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on sources in the article, passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holiest sites in Sunni Islam

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Holiest sites in Sufi Islam

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

Sources do not contain notablity regarding Sunni holy sites, for example: There's not a single source which indicates that all sites mentioned are holy in "Sunni Islam". Most of the sites mentioned here are mentioned in Holiest sites in Islam. No site, literally no site claims that these sites are holy in Sunni Islam Biskut Merry (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this might be a POVfork, holy sites can well differ between religious divisions within a faith; as a protestant I could care less about Lourdes, but understand that certain other religious sites (e.g. Church of the Holy Sepulchre) are venerated in all major divisions of Christianity. To that end, the nomination statement appears to be too problematic to evaluate within the context of a simple AfD. We all know that the various divisions within Islam all consider Mecca holy, and I presume that as we descend in order of importance, variations within the divisions will occur. I do not think it would be wise to delete a hypothetical Holiest sites in Orthodox Christianity, for example, just because a cursory review found that much overlapped a similarly hypothetical Holiest sites in Christianity. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recently an AfD discussion resulted in the deletion of Holiest sites in Sufi Islam. I believe this may set a precedent for deletion of this page but I am pinging the editors involved in that discussion for comment: Mccapra Apaugasma. (I was a rather strong keep in that discussion so I hope this isn't misconstrued as canvassing.) Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This makes a sense to me and is definitely not like Holiest sites in Sufi Islam (because we do not have a separate division in Islam called Sufi Islam, it is rather reformation of heart, as I know it). But I do think that some admin should bring the stuff from Sufi article to the Sunni Islam article. Sufism is majorly associated with Sunni Islam and it'd be hugely helpful for us to have such a list over here. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 07:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with TheAafi that this is not like Holiest sites in Sufi Islam. The importance of this list is that it excludes sites which are only revered by Shii Muslims. Sunni sources won’t describe themselves as Sunni, but simply as Muslim, so demonstrating notability is not straightforward. There may be a case for having a single list article showing sites revered by both Sunni and Shii Muslims and putting sites only of interest to Shii Muslims in a separate section. That would avoid all this forking but that’s outside the scope of this AfD. So despite the nominator’s good faith reasoning, I think the topic of this article is certainly notable. Mccapra (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to List of holy sites in Sunni Islam - This is essentially a list of holy sites in Sunni Islam, which I think fails notability per WP:LISTN (it is not discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources), but which is still appropriate to keep per the same WP:LISTN : lists that fulfill recognized informational [...] purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. However, according to WP:LISTCRITERIA, selection criteria [...] should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Now while there is such an objective and reliably sourceable criterion for the three or four traditional holiest sites in Islam (the Kaaba in Mecca, The Prophet's Mosque in Medina, al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, to which said article should restrict itself), there is no such criterion for all the other sites mentioned in the article under discussion (nor for the ones listed in Holiest sites in Shia Islam and in Holiest sites in Islam). Reliable sources never discuss what exactly are the holiest sites in Islam apart from the main three or four (Sunni, Shia, or otherwise), and so this is not a reliable criterion. However, what are considered just "holy" sites in Sunni Islam (without any ranking) probably is an appropriate and sourceable criterion, so it would suffice to just rename the article. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apaugasma you yourself said we have an objective criteria for 3-4 holiest sites in Islam. Why not restrict the scope of this article to those sites?VR _talk 10:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also by this objective criterion do you mean the Sunni hadith that the prophet designated the mosques of Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem as pilgrimage-worthy[13]? If so, the topic is not "Holiest sites in Sunni Islam" but rather "Sunni view of Holiest sites in Islam". Which makes this a WP:POVFORK that I'd recommend merging back to Holiest sites in Islam.VR _talk 10:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: Yes I do mean the objective criteria you refer to (though there's more than that hadith, and though it's worth pointing out for others reading this that we should not directly refer to a primary source like a hadith, but to secondary sources, like VR did well here). I agree in principle with your merge proposals here and elsewhere, but as I also commented below, far more important in my view is that we should clearly distinguish between the historical concept of holiest sites and the typical wiki-lists of 'holy' sites: we created (and we should never create things) this confusion, and should undo it ASAP. Any article with "holiest sites" in its title should not be about anything but the historical Mecca-Medina-Jerusalem(-Damascus) series: that should be the priority, and deciding whether we want separate articles for Sunni and Shii views on this should only be a secondary concern. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good point and I’d support a rename too. Mccapra (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I also support the current name, as it's rather consistent to how we deal with, well, Holiest sites in Islam. The two topics seem to be unique enough on their face to deserve different articles. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Both Holiest sites in Sunni Islam and Holiest sites in Shia Islam were split from Holiest sites in Islam on 12 March 2009 with the stated reason to clearly separate the Sunni from the Shi'i perspective (see the notice here), so they are indeed intended to treat the same topic. However, this topic (a list of all Islamic sites that some editors may consider holier than others) is based on a criterion that utterly fails WP:LISTCRITERIA as quoted above.

The trouble is that there actually is a sourceable concept of three or four holiest sites in Islam. In fact, our article Holiest sites in Islam started of in September 2006 as "Third holiest site in Islam", went through three monstrous AfD's (1, 2, 3), and after a lot of further discussion was eventually renamed in December 2006 to the current title (final decision here). The original topic of the article was a controversy over whether the Al-Aqsa Mosque is or is not the third holiest site in Islam. When this controversy was found to be too intractable to be the subject of an article, the renamed page inherited the word "holiest" from the original (from the sourceable 'third holiest' to the non-sourceable 'holiest in general').

But being now a list of merely 'holy' Islamic sites, it has nothing to do anymore with the traditional Islamic concept of three or four holiest sites. Being still named that way, however, it confuses the traditional Islamic concept with the very much Wikipedian concept of generic 'holiest sites in Islam' (just see what you get when typing "holiest sites in Islam" in Google Scholar). The latter is an artefact of the deletion and move discussions of 2006, and being created by Wikipedia itself (a type of 'Frankenstein'), it has no notability at all. I say it's high past time we corrected this mistake. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indeed a POVFORK but still significant enough to deserve own article. Mukt (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Holiest sites in Islam. I don't see why "holiest sites in Sunni Islam" or "List of holy sites in Sunni Islam" (as Apaugasma suggested) can't be covered at Holiest sites in Islam or List of holy sites in Islam, respectively. I prefer splits either when the parent article is too large or when the topic is too different, and neither seems to be the case here. We can't create Sunni WP:POVFORK for every Islam-related article there is.VR _talk 10:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly a notable topic deserving of its own article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As a disambiguation page. Sandstein 13:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case knife

AfDs for this article:

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

No references at all. Appears to just be another name for a table knife. Nathanielcwm (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Nathanielcwm (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to table knife. Literally just an alternative name for table knife, no separate article justified. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to W. R. Case & Sons Cutlery Co.. In depth internet source searches are providing nothing online in reliable sources about the notion of a case knife being "a knife that was sold in a case, as part of a set of utensils intended for use in dining". However, sources exist about case knives in reference to pocketknives produced by the W. R. Case & Sons Cutlery Co. Some source examples include:

Collecting Case Knives. Krause Publications. 2015. 304 pages.
Official Price Guide to Collector Knives. Random House Information Group. 2008. pp. 175–183.

–Quote from p. 180: "The collector who specializes in knives made by W. R. Case & sons or other Case-related companies will be pleased with the extensive listing that follows."

As such, this comes across as the most accurate redirect target. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per NorthAmerican; their arguments for Case & Sons is convincing. I wouldn't object too heavily to table knife if the consensus moves that way, however. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but change to a disambiguation page, linking to Sheath knife, W. R. Case & Sons Cutlery Co., and Table knife. I looked into it further, and it seems that the use of the phrase is ambiguous; for instance, Merriam Webster considers it to mean either a sheath knife or a table knife, while Collins refers to it solely as a sheath knife. Incidentally, I am not certain of the "correct" !vote when believing that disambiguation is the correct option, and any comments clarifying, either as a response to this or on my talk page would be welcome. BilledMammal (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The long and confusing history of the term warrants detailed explanation. The original usage goes back to the 17th century and was not just a table knife as such knives might be used for hunting too. The knives manufactured by W. R. Case are more recent, as that business started in 1889. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and disambig: per BilledMammal. A very good suggestion. A pure keep is out of the question in my opinion, per WP:NOTDICT. Curbon7 (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If kept, in what form? As a dab or article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Disambiguate - The term is a valid search term, and as explained above, the fact that it can be used to refer to several different types of knives means that a simple Redirect to one of those would not be useful. Creating a disambiguation page linking to the various knives that have been referred to as a Case knife according to sources would be a much better way to direct readers. Rorshacma (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly there is some disambiguation that needs to happen here at a minimum per BilledMammal. It's possible we could find sources to write a valid history explaining different uses of the word per Andrew Davidson. We'll let article contributors sort out the details between those two options as they locate RS for article improvement in the future.4meter4 (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaaitara

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

Fictitious (perhaps?) place on Nonouti or Teraina (not a populated place).--Arorae (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - fixed nomination for the nominator and transcluded to log Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A real place, according to Kiribati's 2010 Census, but with zero population. Perhaps it should be listed as a former settlement, but remember that there are lots of ghost towns in the United States and Canada and places like Old Sarum in England that have articles. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it was a real place, but we cannot keep ghost towns without any population. It is not a census place in the last census (2020).--Arorae (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we can keep ghost towns without any population, per WP:DEGRADE. Geschichte (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

but there are no ghost towns in Kiribati, just former settlements whith no more inhabitants for years, and there is no NOTABILITY on this kind of places, @Geschichte:...--Arorae (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simply saying it isn't notable isn't a valid argument, per the guidelines set by WP:GEOLAND and WP:DEGRADE it is. Also, how is it not a ghost town? Does the definition of "A ghost town or alternatively deserted city or abandoned city is an abandoned village, town, or city, usually one that contains substantial visible remaining buildings and infrastructure such as roads." not fit Kaaitara? Pladica (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sorry to tell you that there are no roads in Teraina only paths in the bush, for pedestrians, and that the only substantial buildings may only include buia (small bungalows) that are generally moved when people do not live there. if not moved, the wood and the pandanus leaves of the buia are quickly reused elsewhere. If you can show me the remains of Kaataraina, it will be my pleasure to offer you a bottle of champagne of good quality, as I am French. @Pladica:--Arorae (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any sources demonstrating that it was once notable? Remember, WP:GEOLAND requires more than just verification that people lived there. –dlthewave ☎ 02:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it was NEVER notable. And Teraina history is very short.--Arorae (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although this does appear to be a former populated place, it's a populated place without legal recognition which would need to meet GNG per WP:GEOLAND #2. I'm open to changing my !vote if significant coverage can be found. –dlthewave ☎ 17:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not legally recognized? Like Eastmain stated above, it was counted on the 2010 census. Pladica (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pladica:. With zero (0) inhabitants in the 2010, 2015 and 2020 Census. The place doesn´t exist LEGALLY as per Constitution of Kiribati that considers only one council per atoll (Teraina council in this case). Kaainga (settlements) have no LEGAL recognition. There is no such subdivisions in Kiribati.--Arorae (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GEOLAND and WP:DEGRADE Pladica (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current population is 0. --RamotHacker (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That has no relationship to whether the article should be kept or deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have been a recognised populated place, so passes WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was pinged. Why I do not know, and I've turned pings off anyway. Should I close this discussion though? No, I'm not entirely convinced by the census source as I'm not familiar with the nature of Kiribati censuses. What is counted there? The coordinates are botched as well. Geschichte (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it was at one point a populated place.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GEOLAND and WP:DEGRADE.4meter4 (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Gary Braver

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

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

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

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I doubt I'll be reading any of his books anytime soon, but he's written a fair number for which I could easily find (non-puff) reviews via Google. He seems to be a (minor) award winner and it looks like he's notable in his area. RomanSpa (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: do you know it's BLP and unsourced? See WP:BLPSOURCES. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing a ton of reliable reviews in my search. The lack of sourcing and history of promotional tone/autobiographical interference issues also makes me think that even if sourcing is presented that show WP:GNG/WP:NAUTHOR are met, deleting per WP:TNT and then starting over again in the draftspace may be the best course of action. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors claiming to have found sources would do better to link them or provide an account of them. The article being poorly written ("fawning fan page") is not an argument for deleting unless this is so bad that it should have been speedy deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist as editors claim WP:SOURCESEXIST but haven't linked them. Pinging RomanSpa and SouthernNights.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. As Eggishorn points out, moving the article does not solve the problem of lacking sources (WP:V). Sandstein 15:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

War Telephone

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

Fails to meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Asketbouncer (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While the particular iteration of the company may not meet CORPDEPTH, its likely the historic War Telephone Company does. With a bit of work looking through historic newspaper archives to source the content, the article could probably be salvaged by simply moving the article to War Telephone Company and making the historic company the primary subject and the current company as a secondary mention in the article. A google books search yielded several Us Congressional reports and FCC reports involving that company from the 1940s through 1980s. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to War Telephone Company - seems sensible and there doesn't seem to be any objections. St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources in the article or searches, not surprisingly for a single-county utility subdivision. I don't see how renaming addresses the almost complete lack of sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - as G12 by admin Amakuru. (non-admin closure) St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii national soccer team

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

This team lacks reliable sources covering it (I suggest searching with "Cristiano Scapolo"+Hawaii or "Ian Andrew Mork"+soccer). There is a claim of significance in that this team claims to be some sort of a national team, however it is a newly founded team claiming a connection to the defunct Kingdom of Hawaii. Other than the team's own website, it does not appear to have gained traction. College level teams (e.g. University of Hawaii soccer team) have more coverage. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyvio, but agree that otherwise Delete is the right solution here. Fram (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong?. CSYZ 73 (CSYZ 73) 15:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keerthana Sabarish

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

No reliable sources found on a WP: BEFORE. Requesting speedy delete. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Seems notable. Let it go through AFC process. Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete searched in English and Malayalam and found no RIS. Mccapra (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage found. Fails WP:SINGER.defcon5 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SINGER and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2022 IndyCar Series – bearing in mind that redirects are easily reversed and the article is currently entirely unsourced. – Joe (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Indianapolis 500

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

This fails WP:SIGCOV and GNG Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 06:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, unless public health reasons keep it from happening, there will be a 2022 Indianapolis 500. The article could be draftified, but I would prefer to keep it in article space until more information becomes available. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As would I, and of course the article does need to have some external references. Rillington (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - scheduled future event almost certain to take place. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As CRYSTAL; the 2020 edition was held without fans, so they would likely do the same (or delayed) if the health situation worsened. Nate • (chatter) 22:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 IndyCar Series - WP:TOOSOON. The article is completely unsourced. While it can be reasonably established that barring some unforeseen catastrophic event there almost certainly will be an Indianapolis 500 in 2022, it's dubious that any other details can be established at such a date. How are we supposed to know who the commentators will be or who will give the starting command? That clearly fails WP:CRYSTAL. Given how major an event it is I think there is an argument for making an article in advance, but it can wait until the 2022 IndyCar Series has actually started and more sourcing will be available. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON. "almost certain to take place" is not a sufficent reason to keep an article if there is a lack of secondary sources that discuss the event. The closest thing I could find are ticket sales. Regardless of whether the event happens or not, it will have an article one day but - with the race not due to take place for another 10 months - this event is not suffciently notable for an article at this time. Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. SSSB (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm in disagreeance with the above two !voters' interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL per criteria #1. This event is less than a year away. There is already speculation ([14][15][16]) and presumably planning. Passes the criteria established at WP:CRYSTAL. Curbon7 (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you can argue that speculation and presumed planning mean that something passes WP:CRYSTAL. It's unlikely that this subject will gain independent notability from either the Indianapolis 500 article or the 2022 IndyCar Series article until entry lists have actually been released for the event. We don't need a separate article from the general Indy 500 article to tell us that future Indy 500s will be run over 200 laps of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway on the last Sunday of May. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 is speculation on the grid, so yes, it does cover the '22 Indy 500, but I do not believe it asserts notability. Source 2 is coverage of Johnson, not of the Indy 500, and is clearly not significant coverage. Source 2 is coverage of Carlin, not of the Indy 500, and is clearly not significant coverage. Together, they are not enough to demonstrate notability as required by WP:GNG. I also agree with HumanBodyPiloter5 that speculation and planning alone do not meet the criteria set out in WP:CRYSTAL.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 IndyCar Series. There are two non-ticketing results on the first two pages of a Google search for the article title. The 'speculation' claimed to exist and linked above seems to be in the form of calendar and grid speculation, not specific coverage of the event that would warrant an independent article. The first criterion of CRYSTAL states quite clearly that the event must be notable and almost certain to take place. While the second condition is debatable (commenters above are speculating quite optimistically), the 2022 Indy 500 unambiguously fails WP:GNG.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 IndyCar Series per above.4meter4 (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, with no prejudice against a future merge proposal if the article proves unexpandable. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamtime Village

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

I don't think this is a very notable place. The only RS discussing this place is the one NYT article linked here and the Isthmus article. wizzito | say hello! 05:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 05:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 05:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 05:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to West Lima, Wisconsin. I buy that it's not independently notable, but since there are some RS, it can be merged. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it is independently notable, now that the New York Times reference has been added. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is really more of a collective/collaborative social experiment than a geographic settlement. (Maybe the categorization needs adjusting?) I have improved the article, adding several citations SIGCOV in reliable sources. Also added a section on the publishing house they ran/run. They are the subject of several in-depth articles in newspapers and journals, and their mail art publications are in the collections of the Smithsonian Archives of American Art, MoMA, and the Minneapolis Museum of Art. The article meets notability of GNG, and can be further improved. It should be retained in the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 15:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shusaku opening

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

PRODed with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. " PROD removed without explanation despite my request for one. The term seems pretty non-existent in English outside Wikipedia. Google Books gives two hits, one seems to be mention in passing, the other, a few sentences in a book about Go strategy ([17]), I can't access it and I am concerned it could be reproducing content from Wikipedia. I have serious doubts this needs a stand-alone article since it appears we cannot write more than few sentences about this anyway. Maybe some merge and redirect to Fuseki could be used as an WP:ATD? That said, it's possible more WP:SIGCOV exists in Japanese (however, no ja wiki article is interwikied, and the Chinese one is even worse than ours and totally unrefenreced to boot). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added more references, which, in my humble opinion, can prove the notability of Shusaku opening. --Neo-Jay (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Neo-Jay: I appreciate you expanding on this. As the sources cited are not English, could you tell us if they meet the requirements of WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus: Thank you. There are eight non-English references now, six of which are published books (with ISBN) written by notable authors (Go Seigen, Rin Kaiho, Keiichi Kiriyama, Li Jie, and Naoki Hane), one of which is an article published in a notable journal (Historical Monthly). I think that they are reliable sources and have significant coverage. --Neo-Jay (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neo-Jay I accept they are reliable. Before I withdraw this deletion proposal (which I am close to), could you comment on how at least two sources meet WP:SIGCOV ? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thank you for your question. Probably some of the references do not meet "significant coverage". But they serve as inline citations by providing sources for specific statements in text. --Neo-Jay (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neo-Jay It's fine if some do not. I interpret SIGCOV as at met if at least two sources meet it. Could you point to such sources? No need for entire books dedicated to this concept, a chapter or such would do. Few paragraphs may suffice. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thanks for your explanation. Page 78 (whole page, two paragraphs) of Rin Kaiho 2013 (footnote 2) and page 182 (whole page, two paragraphs) of Naoki Hane 2012 (footnote 7) discuss Shusaku opening. And I added a book (a volume of a book series) as further reading, the whole of which discusses Shusaku opening. Thank you.--Neo-Jay (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The prod process is only for "uncontroversial deletion" but we already see the nomination backing away from this with its talk of merger and withdrawal. So that prod was improper and so is this nomination too, with its talk of a source search in English, when this classic game is most popular in China and Japan. Neo-Jay has ably demonstrated that improvement is feasible and so our policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:GO. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While the article needs to be improved, even a cursory study of go will reveal the notability of this subject. —¿philoserf? (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. My concerns have been addressed, thank you to Neo-Jay for expansion with foreign language sources which I think we can AGF. No remaining delete votes. Good save. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dyssynergia. ✗plicit 06:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asynergy

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

The article is currently a dictionary definition, where wikt:asynergy has us covered. A search for more sources suggests this is a term that is not-much used, and typically is used in a generic sense (i.e. to mean a lack of coordination between typically coordinated things, rather than to define a particular condition). I can't find sources that really discuss the topic in enough depth that I could build the article here. Ajpolino (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dyssynergia, which is a more general term covering this, and does have a reasonable encyclopedic entry. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 06:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dyssynergia per WP:ATD and above. NagalimNE (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Damn Small Linux. As content has been merged, this is necessary to preserve the page history. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hikarunix

AfDs for this article:

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

Niche Linux distribution. AfD in 2007 makes PROD not valid, so here we go. My rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant independent coverage located on a search. 2007 really was a different time, wasn't it? Look at those "keep" comments. Anarchy. 07:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete, agree, this seems to have been a maybe one person project from around 2005. Sixteen years later it never met notability levels. I added half a sentence of prose to the Damn Small Linux article cited to two sources from this one, which is probably all it mwerits: a quick mention in another article. W Nowicki (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@W Nowicki In this case, maybe a redirect to the DSL article? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine too, considering this as using the merge process instead of a pure delete. As I recall one reason for not doing an redirect (without protection at least) would be to avoid someone with an agenda from expanding it into an article again, but that is probably not going to happen since this one is so far in the past. On the other hand, the redirect would not serve much use, since a search would turn up the mention anyway. W Nowicki (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karim Jovian

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

Lacks WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. Briefly mentioned in the cbc.ca reference; briefly mentioned in Webster University's paper; I don't think any of the other sources would qualify as WP:RS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the sources count towards WP:GNG as they're either trivial coverage, primary, or unreliable sources. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant news coverage. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with WP:NPASR, although as per User:Matthew hk's comments it seems like consensus for a merge might be found once other content is cleaned up. I therefore suggest resolving this outside AfD. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Business Africa

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

Here v. PROD as a merge was boldly reverted (Courtesy @Matthew hk: and imagine this needs more discussion. I am unable to find evidence that this company meets WP:CORP. Hits are limited to press releases and merger news, but nothing significant or in depth. I don't think it's an English language issue as it was part of larger companies in the past, it just does not appear to be notable per sourcing I can find Star Mississippi 15:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't saw any real PROD tag in the edit summaries. CSD A7 was in 2011 and i don't think edit summary is the good place to discuss article merge. I can't really tell the WP:NCORP notability as i haven't done google search in 2021, but at least "Gateway Business Africa" (or known as Gateway Business) is a different entity which is different from Vodacom / Vodafone . Matthew hk (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably merge to PCCW Global is a solution but the article does not exist yet . Scope of the articles PCCW and Hong Kong Telecom may need cleanup to have the content for "PCCW Global" or not or deem "PCCW Global" is notable under WP:NCORP or not. Matthew hk (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"comment Re PROD, I just assumed that if you disagreed with the merge, you likely also would with PROD so decided to save that step. Star Mississippi 20:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 18:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Dunhan Claus

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

None of the sources given in the article have Walter Dunhan Claus as the primary subject. None of the claims to notability, such as academic posts or assessment of his work as stated in the article are supported by any of the sources cited. A WP:BEFORE search yielded no sources of significance. Essentially this is a largely unverified article, with sources only verifying the existence of his publications but without indicating the significance of those publications or his overall work as a scientist. None of the biographical content is supported by the sources either. I was unable to find any critical assessment of his work to verify his role as a pioneer. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACADEMIC. 4meter4 (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable, independent sources are cited. Peer-reviewed journals with the subject in the byline are not reliable, independent sources, as they are merely self-published work with editorial oversight. Multi7001 (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It should be Walter Dunham Claus, as in the text, not "Dunhan", as in the title. At least one of the sources cited is reliable and independent, though I wouldn't call it "in depth". Some other sources are available, and I've begun incorporating them into the article. Wiki-notability might depend on whether fellowship in and presidency of the Health Physics Society meet WP:PROF. I'm inclined to say "yes", when comparing him to other researchers of the time period. (WP:PROF is mostly geared to evaluating scientists and other academics who are alive and active today; mid-20th-century American physicists most known for work during the Eisenhower era are a little outside our typical "look 'em up on Google Scholar" methodology.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding and adding sources as well as catching the spelling error in the title. I went ahead and moved the page to fix the spelling error. I'll take s look more closely at your additions later today to evaluate whether or not to withdraw this nomination. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the remark that "Peer-reviewed journals with the subject in the byline are not reliable, independent sources, as they are merely self-published work with editorial oversight." alarms me considerably. I think it's contrary to WP:PROF which indicates that writing highly-cited papers is a route to notability, and I worry that it doesn't reflect the nature of peer-review, which is highly selective and independent of the author. The whole point is that editorial oversight is what converts self-publishing into publishing. And the editorial oversight of a good peer-reviewed journal is ferociously strong. Just try publishing something in Nature! I haven't looked at the citation rates and impact on Walter Dunham Claus' publications, but his publications, with proper evaluation, should be taken as a potential measure of his notability, in that they reflect the impact he made on his field. Elemimele (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elemimele, I agree with you. However, I think what Multi7001 was trying to get at is that sources which are authored by the subject lack independence per the written guidelines at GNG; no matter how much editorial oversight there is. That's important in this case as a large percentage of the cited sources in this article were written by the subject. What we are really lacking is any source material which covers this person in depth in an independent source. To quote GNG. "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." We are currently lacking a source which provides significant independent coverage on Walter Dunham Claus.4meter4 (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 But please do have another look at WP:PROF. The point is this: notability can be achieved by authoring highly-cited works. It's in the specific criteria notes, section 1(a). A citation is an independent recognition of the author. There are basically two ways it can work. We can either find an independent review article that says "Smith's method is used by absolutely everyone", or we can find that a million everyones have cited the paper in which Smith originally described his method. The second situation still makes Smith notable, but obviously we can't list all million times Smith got cited; instead, by convention, we give a reference to Smith's highly-cited paper as evidence of Smith's notability, and it is independent because Smith didn't, and couldn't force anyone cite him. The only thing we could reasonably add to this would be an indication of how many people actually did cite Smith's paper, by reference to some citation index. Conventionally we don't do this because most academics would regard it as superfluous. Incidentally, we also regard academics as notable if they've held a named chair or been chief editor of a high-ranking journal, and neither of these necessarily generates independent coverage. Again, the point is that you can't get to either of these situations unless someone independent of you thinks you're worth it. Elemimele (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elemimele, I can see some merit to the rationale that the subject would meet criteria 3 or 8 of NPROF per User:XOR'easter. I'll admit I was a bit biased against the article to begin with because it was created and largely written by InfoDataMonger (an undisclosed paid editor who is now permanently blocked), and the article title misspelling threw off my BEFORE search. I am happy to change my vote to Keep based on that rationale. Unfortunately there can be no withdrawal because another editor has voted delete.4meter4 (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 4meter4, oh, no, sorry, I'm just confusing the issue here. I don't have any particular opinion on Walter Dunham Claus, and I'm not trying to change your opinion; I only took objection to the idea that widely-cited peer-reviewed papers didn't indicate notability, and particularly I didn't like the term self-published (you may well be right that I misread that editor's intent; I think I took it too personally; I work an an academic field). If you don't think the subject of this article is notable, by all means stick to your guns! Elemimele (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elemimele No harm done. I was already contemplating changing to keep, and this little side trail helped me make a decision. Ultimately I do find XOR'easter's comments convincing. I'm currently getting ready to submit work to a journal for publication myself; so I can understand why you took offense to the label of self published for academic journals. Anybody who has ever gone through the scrutiny of a peer review process, an IRB board review, followed by an editorial board review would object to that label.4meter4 (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matal (2018)

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

Non notable film, no significant coverage from WP:RS, no significant review or anything. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article was deleted previously, see Matal (2018 film) আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:41, 26 August 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 the subject is currently redirecting to Matal (film).

Current redirect ↪ Matal (film)

Logs: 2021-08 move to → Matal (film 2018)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not significant coverage. Delete per nominator. ~Yahya (✉) • 21:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Matal (film). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a clone of IMDb, which aims to list the credits of every film ever made. To provide encyclopedic value, Wikipedia puts data in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. We are supposed to treat creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works.

From before the film was released, there is plenty of promotional hype by people invested in in it. Searches of the usual Google types, in English and Bengali, for coverage after the film was released, however, found only brief mentions: [18] and [19]. The film exists, but there has been no independent journalistic coverage or critical analysis of it. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Herbrich

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

Non-notable. Does not appear to have won any truly significant film award and otherwise fails WP:GNG, as the only sources in the article are press releases; own website; and catalogues, and what I could find elsewhere is an interview or another one about a film he produced... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note The recent additions to the article by its creator are also similarly based on dubious sources (including the two I found above, and more listings and trivial coverage)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.: New references enclosed on Sept 3rd 2021 are all live status and acknowledged. This concerns

Ref 1: Issued by Filmmuseum Düsseldorf – stating Herbrich's Vorlass (= Nachlass of a living person) has been taken to its collection in 2019

Ref 9: Issued by Hanns Seidel Foundation – information about film workshop on „Searching for El Dorado“ and „Bikini – mon amour“ held by Oliver Herbrich in the renowned institution in Dec 2019.

Ref 11: Issued by German newspaper Die Zeit – article on release history of „The Bavarian Al Capone“ in 1987

Ref 12: Issued by German newspaper Donaukurier – article on re-release of „The Bavaria Al Capone“ in Nov. 2019 (full page article)

Ref 13: Issued by German newspaper Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung – Interview with Oliver Herbrich on „Earthbound“ from Aug 2018 (full page article)

Ref 16/17: issued by German Films – archive information (synopsis, film data, festivals) on „Priests of the Condemned“ and „Rules of the Road“ in English

Ref 19: Issued by German newspaper Münchner Merkur – article on Oliver Herbrich on start of retrospective form Nov 2017 (full page article)

Post scriptum: The English press releases (= references 2, 5, 8, 10 and 15) have been replaced by information from DFF – Deutsches Filminstitut und Filmmuseum Frankfurt providing archival material on German films in English language. The films referred to are 30 to 40 years old – only references from that time are printed newspaper articles and interviews in German language (i.e. pdf) – no recent web sources available from that pre internet era). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henriette2018 (talk • contribs)

In order: ref 1 = database entry; ref 9 = pamphlet for a seminary which looks both like routine coverage and non-independent coverage (it's clear the Herbrich was involved, "Wir freuen uns, dass Oliver Herbrich mit uns über seine Filme diskutieren wird [...]" [We are happy that Oliver Herbrich will discuss his movies with us]); ref 11: can't access [20], but looks from the title more like a candidate for coverage of the movie than of it's director (and WP:NINHERITED), and might even be an interview like refs 12 ([21]) and 13 ([22]) - interview are not independent of the subject, so are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG; 16/17 are also database entries; and 19 is also an interview (as I've identified in my original post here). So basically none of the sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: More (non-interview) media coverage from German press on Herbrich and his work (1980 – 1995) is available as printed newspaper articles and could be submitted as pdfs. However, inclusion as download (via “filesur.com”) has been inhibited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henriette2018 (talk • contribs)

The reason for that is because hosting of content like that without the approval of the copyright holders is a copyright violation and Wikipedia can't link to copyright violations for obvious legal reasons. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all refrences have been replaced - please see leastest version of the article. No more interviews or data base entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henriette2018 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per no input from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Litbits

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The Samantha Ellis source is a WP:BLOG. The Guardian source is trivial. The ABC source might be the only source that is more than a trivial mention, but WP:GNG states that more than one source is generally expected.The remaining sources appear to all be permanently dead links to primary or unreliable sources. When searching there are some WP:GHITS because James Kidd wrote some articles for the South China Morning Post and a journalist named Ron Cerabona has a column at The Canberra Times called “Litbits”. Searching Google Books and Google Scholar yields a few sources discussing a blog by the same name, but full previews are not available for the books and it looks like the blog is by a guy named Bedford so I don’t think it’s related to the radio show. I also couldn’t find anything on newspapers.com related to the radio show. The article is also an orphan except for one of the guest’s pages links to it, but as far as I can tell there isn’t a real redirect target. It’s also worth noting that the article has been tagged for notability issues since 2015. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Svelte. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sapper (application framework)

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

Sources on the subject are sparse and tend to be about Svelte (and hosted by Svelte as well). I'm not sure there's enough to be said about the topic to fill an encyclopedia article, let alone one that's got independent reliable sources. Citing (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Svelte. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG or any other relevant notability standard. Agree with nominator. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ganesha811 ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by length of tenure

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

Compare with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of Canada by time in office and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of presidents of the United States by time in office (2nd nomination). Except this is actually worse than that, since the only source is a UK government website which only gives a basic list of prime ministers. Blatant WP:LISTN fails, and also trivial statscruft which fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is just a redundant WP:CONTENTFORK from List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The length of tenure of PMs is significant because they don't have fixed term limits like US Presidents. And so it was an issue whether Tony Blair would match Margaret Thatcher's record or whether Boris Johnson would have the shortest tenure. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN and the worst case would be merger into something like Records of prime ministers of the United Kingdom but as the nominator is on a spree, it's best to hold the line here. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Andrew (above) has just shown that WP:LISTN is satisfied. Using Ecosia I also found several other sources [23], for example. SSSB (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'per Andrew and SSSB. Whether the Canadian and US lists are or are not encyclopaedic (I'm expressing no opinion here), this topic very clearly is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This information is already given on List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. Why do we need a separate page regurgitating it? Getting quite exasperated at these kind of articles - and the keep brigades defending of them. Why should someone go to three different lists to see a pm’s age, tenure and start date when it can be and is covered in one page? Has no one heard of Occam’s razor? Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That other list does not present the information in an accessible fashion as its list is split into three separate sections and none of them are sortable. The list in question clearly meets a need. It has existed since 2006, has been validated and worked on by hundreds of editors, serving millions of readers. What's exasperating is that a single driveby deletionist can threaten this extensive history in such a cavalier fashion without regard to WP:BEFORE. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HARDWORK, WP:ARTICLEAGE, WP:INVOLVE. Why not just edit the List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom page to make it easier to filter etc if that is the issue. Occam's razor one again! It seem untenable for WP to become trillions of bite-sized extremely narrowly focussed articles on the ground of accessibility. Surely we can give readers a little more credit. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Occam's razor ("entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity") is little more than an opinion. Have you never heard of Occam's razor#Anti-razors? You have not denied that WP:LISTN is satisfied, and as far as I can tell, a merger into the main list is not practicle (for the reasons listed by Andrew above), meaning that the common, but incorrect paraphrasing of the razor ("the simplest explanation is usually the best one.") would support having both lists. SSSB (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The above arguments are laughable because List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom already gives the lengths of terms, so this is an unnecessary duplicate no matter how notable the topic is. That table should be reworked to be sortable though. Merge to Records of prime ministers of the United Kingdom also works. Reywas92^Talk 13:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It doesn't really matter how notable the idea of the length of the UK Prime Minister's terms have been, since the simple fact remains that this is still a redundant fork of List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom, which already lists the exact information that is on this chart. This list is basically just a version of the main article's list, only with less information and no valid sources or pieces of information that is not already present on that article, making it a pointless WP:SPLIT. A redirect could be OK, but I doubt this article title is a very likely search term. Rorshacma (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With over 150,000 views this year before the deletion nomination, and double that last year, it's very clear that people are looking for this exact information and that the main list is not serving their needs. Why is it not meeting their needs? Probably because the main list is not sorted nor sortable by the length of tenure, nor could it be made sortable without a complete redesign. Given that the main list is featured, consensus for such a redesign would seem unlikely at best (especially as it would mean less optimal presentation of other information contained there).

Ultimately, while a glance at the article titles might suggest this is a redundant fork, when you actually look at the detail of the two lists it's clear that neither is actually redundant to the other. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson and Thryduulf -GorgonaJS (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's only a fork if the main article has a sortable list that adds up the length of multiple terms. The way the list article is constructed it is very difficult to extract the total length of terms, which as pointed out above is something people regularly seek information on. — Jts1882 | talk 09:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The info can be added as a sortable column on the list.67.173.23.66 (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it can't, or at least not without a major redesign of a featured list and as noted above consensus for that is far from guaranteed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing preventing the list from being redesigned if the need arises. Even if it can't be made sortable, the info can still be made a column if this page is deleted.67.173.23.66 (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the page, it seems that the list already includes each prime minster's length of tenure, which makes a separate article a bit redundant.67.173.23.66 (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The list can be re-arranged if desired, but I strongly suspect that there isn't the desire to altar a featured list to increase the prominence of one relatively small (but still encyclopaedic) aspect simply because a few people dislike having a separate list that is designed to present that information in the most useful way possible. This is especially the case that any such redesign of the main list would, of necessity, decrease the prominence (or maybe even inclusion) of other information. While the tenure length is in the main list, it is not possible to get from it answers to questions like who had the longest or shortest (or 2nd, etc longest/shortest) tenure, or how many (and who) had tenures shorter or longer than a given amount of time. Nor is there any reason that the main list should be doing that - Wikipedia is not paper and we don't have to limit ourselves to one list that has to include multiple compromises to do everything it can possibly do when we can have multiple lists that each do different things well. Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Records of prime ministers of the United Kingdom and/or List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. The latter article already lists each of their tenures anyway. Edge3 (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter article already lists each of their tenures anyway. it has been explained multiple times already why this is true but irrelevant. The former article would contain a list of the longest and shortest ~3 only and so a merge there would remove the significant majority of information from this article making the encyclopaedia less useful. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would be not be possible to merge with other articles and presents information in a clear and easy to understand way. Bivaldian (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I love seeing how leaders' time in office compares with others over time. Axedel (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:INTERESTING is not considered a valid argument.2601:241:300:B610:EC54:56D:1E0F:B3A8 (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given by Andrew and Thryduulf. Since Prime Ministers do not have fixed terms of office, having a list that sets them out by term provides significant information about their relative political significance, in a way that a just a general list does not achieve. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew and Thryduulf.4meter4 (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew & Thryduulf. WP:LISTN is satisfied, and merger is not feasible. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age

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

WP:OR (the "overview" section) and trivial cross-categorisations by the dozen (the table). I can't find any external reliable source which discusses this, either (at best, there are mentions of the oldest and youngest, but that statistical platitude is not enough to justify a list of all of the others), showing this fails WP:LISTN. For the US page, the nature of the content is very similar, and searches for sources to meet LISTN also turn up nothing substantial, so I'll spare everyone's time and group the two nominations together. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Regarding the age of U.S. presidents, the History television network has discussed at least the eight oldest. When Carter became the oldest living U.S. president (ever), which the article documents in its second table, CNN [24] and ABC [25] covered the occasion and noted his predecessor. With any comparison of age, birth and death dates are vital, and with those in office, the age on starting and ending that office is a natural addition, as is the length of life after leaving office. "Cross-categorizations "by the dozen" seems an exaggeration. —ADavidB 03:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
History channel (aka the ancient astronauts channel) isn't a particularly edifying source. The rest at best demonstrate that there is some interest (mostly from newspapers, as I can see, so this might also be a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM) in who is the oldest one. But I fail to see how that justifies the rest, or how the table in the article would still not be WP:NOTSTATS material. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is just a redundant WP:CONTENTFORK from List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both List of presidents of the United States by age and List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age per ADavidB. Age comparisons within each respective set of world leaders are of high interest to Wikipedia users and these types of articles, as well as other similar statistical entries, which have been nominated at the same time as this nomination, regularly receive high views. These age statistics are not available anywhere else in such easily accessible sortable form and users would be deprived of the statistical value and interest inherent in those statistics for no reason related to improvement of Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of that supports how this still fails WP:NOTSTATS. This being "interesting to readers" (based on what?) is essentially subjective opinion (I find it entirely uninteresting trivia); and sources I could find only seem to care about the oldest person on the list (or the other extreme). That can maybe be covered in a "Records" list, if one is insistent about it; but it doesn't justify the rest. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Last year List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age received 95723 views, List of presidents of the United States by age received 2368595 views. Wikipedia users do read these articles. -GorgonaJS (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN. For example, see Significance for some SIGCOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom/List of presidents of the United States. These articles really don't add much that can't be handled by an "age" column on the main lists and a paragraph summarizing the records. BSMRD (talk) 05:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:OR? Where? All the dates are easily verifiable. Calculating the length of time between dates is an easy and quick calcultation, and so not original research (Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations). Find the mean/median/mode/range are also quick and easy. Saying "number x is larger than number y" isn't original research either. So I am not sure where the original research.
I also see WP:NOSTATS in a few rebuttals. But the arguements based on WP:NOSTATS suggest that the nominator has only read the (for what of a better word) lead of that section and not the entirety. These two pages actually follow the advice in NOSTATS: Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. - that is what has happened here.
As for WP:LISTN, this is what I found in 90 seconds using an internet search engine: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. No they aren't all reliable sources, but they show that this article passes WP:LISTN. The above list is only for US presidents. I could also habve done UK prime ministers - but I have better things to do than doing RandomCanadian's notability check for him. SSSB (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SSSB, Andrew and others. Very clearly meets WP:LISTN and is not redundant to any other page on the project. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same reasons as others.Bivaldian (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Others have given strong reasons; the largest factor to me is the overall purpose of Wikipedia. I sought out this information specifically as I was curious if Biden is the oldest president to be in office. Without this page, finding that information would have been more difficult. The main purpose of Wikipedia is easily accessible information. A quick check shows that this page has nearly 7 million views since mid-2015; it is clear that this information is sought out, that it meets Wikipedia's guidelines to remain, and is a generally useful page which should definitely not be removed and is best exhibited independently. Caleb 1223 (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The US president page should be merged with pages containing similar age information for other US political leaders. See the similar pages for US Senators, US Representatives, US state governors, and oldest US Senator.Pay special attention to the bottom purple box of List of the oldest living people (Lists of the oldest people by specific groups). See also: Category:Lists of oldest people and current NBA players by age
Keep both. Easily passes list notability per the above comments. If there are WP:OR or other concerns, there are ways to address those by simply improving the article. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per SSSB. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fundamentally as it is useful to readers.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by tenure start

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

Trivial cross-categorisation; which is entirely duplicative of existing content in the main list and otherwise is only OR. The only source given has no content about the title subject; only trivially numbering Johnson. I can't find much else that isn't a wiki mirror, so fails WP:LISTN, too RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is just a redundant WP:CONTENTFORK from List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I'm baffled why this was made, blatant duplicate of main list. Reywas92^Talk 13:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated several times already, this is just a redundant fork of the main List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom, only with no real sources. Redirecting would be pointless, as this would not be a likely search term. Rorshacma (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly pointless. Geschichte (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DELREASON#5: Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate). I don't see anything worth merging to List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom since basically the only thing this list adds is the numbering, and I don't think this title would make for a useful redirect. TompaDompa (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments. I'm honestly surprised that this article exists, since it is duplicative of List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. Edge3 (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted above this is essentially duplication which serves no useful purpose. Dunarc (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of Canada by time in office

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

Fails WP:LISTN, and also appears to be a trivial cross-categorisation based on statistical trivia. I can't find any source which discusses PMs based on the length of their time in office; and the section about "Calculation of terms of office" contains only general material about the term lengths of prime ministers; and then some WP:OR based on parliamentary records. None of the sources in the table seem like they're dealing with the title subject either, only providing details about the respective prime minister's terms. There are two alternatives, thus: merging those paragraphs about prime minister's terms to the main list article; which seems excessive as lists are usually kept short and such details about individual entries are better left in the article about the PM's themselves; or, of course, deleting as one usually does with OR and statscruft... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see you've put a number of these types of articles up for delete. I think if the out come on those are keep (which it looks like they will be), this should be kept as well. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How unconvincing. As for the eternal OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, unless you can show that the same circumstances that appear to apply to others apply to this, then that's irrelevant. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that this keep is more WP:OUTCOMES and WP:POINTy than OTHERCRAP. Nfitz (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The info can be added as a sortable column on the list.67.173.23.66 (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to what, User:67.173.23.66? Nfitz (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of prime ministers of Canada.67.173.23.66 (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the information be added now to that article now? I just cleaned up an AFD merge from 2009, where the article was redirected, but no one ever actually merged any of the material! Otherwise, it's a keep with no prejudice on a later redirect, if someone adds it. Nfitz (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of prime ministers of Canada. Edge3 (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I love seeing how leaders' time in office compares with others over time. Axedel (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:INTERESTING is not considered a valid argument.2601:241:300:B610:EC54:56D:1E0F:B3A8 (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of prime ministers of Canada. Abercrombiescruffy (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of prime ministers of Canada and make it a sortable column. Wiki O'Ryan (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since Prime Ministers do not have fixed terms of office, having a list organised by term of office provides significant information about the relative political significance of the different PMs. They are inherently notable, both individually and as a group, and their relationships to each other is illustrated by a list showing terms of office. The list by time in office thus serves an informational function that a chronological list or an alphabetical list would not do. (I also think it would be difficult to produce a sortable list; I tried to do that with this list, but was defeated by the fact that some PMs served separated terms. But then, I'm not the most techno-wikipedians around, so maybe someone else, more versed in wikidom, would be able to figure it out.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mr Serjeant Buzfuz.4meter4 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments by Serjeant Buzfuz. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationale of Mr Serjeant Buzfuz. ExRat (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I've come across several reliable sources recently that have evaluated Justin Trudeau's legacy in the context of how his term in office compares to other PMs: The Conversation, CBC, and Maclean's. Seems notable, in that light. If we can find a way to merge it cleanly into another page, that'd be reasonable—but I agree with Serjeant Buzfuz that it's difficult given the existence of split terms.

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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of mammals of South Ossetia

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

South Ossetia is only recognised by a handful of countries, is almost universally recognised as being a part of Georgia, is not included in the IUCN Red List, and as a precedent, the "Mammals of Kosovo" page redirects to "Mammals of Serbia". The source used for the article is a dead link. Therefore, redirect to List of mammals of Georgia (country). J0ngM0ng (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - IUCN, ADW, and MDW are all valid sources and cited in the article, so am not sure the “one” reference that is bad. Having a list of mammals is not a statement of sovereignty: Many subnational divisions have similar lists. Despite what you may have heard, Texas is not succeeding, despite the existence of List of mammals of Texas. --awkwafaba (📥) 11:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not saying it's a statement of sovereignty personally, but when even nature sources don't consider a region important enough to be assessed, then maybe it means something. J0ngM0ng (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No indication that this subset list is necessary. Reywas92^Talk 13:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename This is not only unrecognized, but it is not a subnational division either. The article on South Ossetia tells us that its territory “does not correspond to any Georgian administrative area (although Georgian authorities have set up the Provisional Administration of South Ossetia as a transitional measure leading to the settlement of South Ossetia's status), with most of the territory included into Shida Kartli region. When neutral language is deemed necessary, both Georgia and international organisations often refer to the area informally as the (legally undefined) "Tskhinvali Region".” It also has unstable boundaries, due to borderization. —Michael Z. 19:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, it depends whether reliable sources have recognized this as a notable subject, per WP:NOTABILITY. At a glance, it doesn’t appear that any of the cited source mentions South Ossetia. “Mammals of Texas,” in quotation marks, returns over 20k Google Books results; “mammals of South Ossetia” returns one bogus book titled after an experimental visual artist. —Michael Z. 13:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support to redirect. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article doesn't mention the political status of South Ossetia. I don't think there is a rule to confine the listing of flora or fauna to national borders, especially because the borders may change anytime. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect, per nom. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder when this page will finally be reviewed? J0ngM0ng (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Awkwafaba and Dr.KBAHT.4meter4 (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems fine. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't have any specific objection to a redirect, but South Ossetia is specifically referenced in the infobox under "States with limited recognition", which would seem to not contradict the assertion in the nomination here. I don't think anyone is trying to pretend that such a list confers any form of sovereignty. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Clearly the purpose of this article is politics, not biology. Tercer (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don;t see that clearly or otherwise. it's appropriate to have such a list for any substantial defined region, regardless of what anyone may think of the politics. If the article mentioned politics at all, that would be another matter. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for two reasons:

This whole page is an original research. It does not use any sources like "Fauna of South Ossetia".
This is not a unique geographic region, with its own endemic fauna. So, no, it does not make sense to create such lists for any arbitrary defined geographic region. And yes, it was not recognized as a country.My very best wishes (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again in support for redirect : A search for land regions at www.iucnredlist.org reveals that there is NO entry for South Ossetia, whereas 1,223 species are listed for Georgia. Imo it is NOT relevant whether South Ossetia is or is not recognised as politically independent. Relevant is that NO RL list or RL assessment is available for South Ossetia. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it might be redirected or merged, but given lack of sourcing and WP:OR, I think it better be just deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of mammals of Cyprus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of mammals of Northern Cyprus

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

Northern Cyprus is only recognised by 1 country (Turkey), is almost universally recognised as being a part of Cyprus, is not included in the IUCN Red List, and as a precedent, the "Mammals of Kosovo" page redirects to "Mammals of Serbia". The source used for the article is a dead link. Therefore, redirect to List of mammals of Cyprus. J0ngM0ng (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Fails WP:NLIST, as the classification doesn't meet GNG. Further, the list itself doesn't serve any particular purpose; it is an almost-complete subset of List of mammals of Cyprus, though if someone wants to present a reason why this subset is required, I'm happy to listen. BilledMammal (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support to redirect. – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Besides the geopolitics, Cyprus is one island around 200 km across, and all the biotic zones (mainly differentiated by elevation, not north/south east/west divide) are present on both sides of the geopolitical divide. These two articles will remain roughly the same, with differences more likely to arise due to lack of editorial oversight or lack of sources for Northern Cyprus.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that the two differences in the lists (ignoring the re-ordering of whales) appear to be oversights. Wild goats appear to be on all Cyprus, and the Common bent-wing bat has been spotted in Northern Cyprus as well [33].--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having a list of mammals is not a statement of sovereignty: Many subnational divisions have similar lists. Despite what you may have heard, Texas is not succeeding, despite the existence of List of mammals of Texas. --awkwafaba (📥) 11:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the sovereignty issue, List of mammals of the United States is different (wider) than List of mammals of Texas (no polar bears, eared seals, or moose in Texas). The same is not true for Cyprus and the subset of Northern Cyprus, it's the same island, same bio zones, and the same mammals.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that Texas is not succeeding. At least they're not seceding. Esculenta (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect List of mammals of Cyprus can cover the whole island without issue. Reywas92^Talk 13:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. We aren't here to play splitting games with unrelated topics based on a single country's political notions. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Esculenta (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Coolperson177 (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dominick Pezzulo

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial and there is absolutely nothing notable about this individual besides the fact he was featured in World Trade Center (film), which already mentions him in its article. He is no different from the nearly 3,000 other people who died on 9/11. I am also nominating the following related pages because there is nothing notable about these individuals besides being featured in the same movie, which its article also mentions:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems like a mean-spirited nomination. Each person is well documented and there is enough information to demonstrate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me there is a difference between someone entering a doomed building to rescue people and someone trying to get out. Maybe it is my view rather than the nominator's that is idiosyncratic. Never mind, journalists have written about these people partly to remark on mistakes in the film but also to provide more background information. For notability purposes it does not matter why journalists wrote about their subjects but whether what they wrote meets our criteria. I think the articles meet our criteria. Thincat (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This man is a hero who died while trying to save his fellow officers. Ask Will Jimeno if he thinks this page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:AE40:A5B3:89C1:4A13:48F5:2940 (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All are very clearly notable via WP:GNG; a search shows that a number of sources that provide WP:SIGCOV exist on the Internet. While you are correct that we are not a memorial, that alone does not disqualify them from having an article if they pass WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:In my humble opinion, there may be a distinction between a heroic rescuer and a lucky rescued. IF deletion must go ahead, delete the rescued as they were (happily) simply lucky - though their retention adds context to the (worth preserving) stories of the rescuers.ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: William Jimero should be kept since he is also now an author with two titles. All of them should be kept due to their notoriety. IMHO. OnePercent (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A quick Google reveals all individuals above are notable in their own right for their roles in the timeline. Just an aside, which isn't relevant to the AfD or the final decision, but you could have picked a more respectful time to nominate these pages for deletion. Even if you had waited a week... --Jkaharper (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'd like to address John McLoughlin in particular - I came across his name in an article which in no way mentioned or addressed the aforementioned movie, and googled the name to read more about him, which led me to his Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not a memorial, it is however a repository for information, including about people of note, and the experiences McLoughlin had make him a person of note for whom a Wikipedia page is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.200.79 (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and note that MORE information available is preferable to LESS information, especially regarding the events surrounding 9/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.152.172 (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are heroes and deserve their own page, what they did was remarkable and interesting. Nobody is stopping you from making a Wiki-page for the other 3000 people that died. 130.208.204.26 (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Considering their roles in a significantly historical event, I'd say the four articles should remain in line with WP:N. Deleting three of the articles, based exclusively on their inclusion in a film that is in turn based on extraordinary significant events, seems like a shoddy excuse to remove them. Also, the repeated use of "absolutely nothing notable" about the subjects seems a little, perhaps unintentionally, distasteful. Evilgidgit (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find it disgusting that you would attempt to delete this page, you should be ashamed of yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:582:4901:1EB0:0:0:0:B90E (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is extraordinarily significant for someone to survive having not just one, but two 1,000+ foot skyscrapers fall on top of them. If anything, this provides context to the ~3,000 dead who may lack an article; survival was just that difficult. Wikipedia is about notability and this is pretty notable, considering the many articles being written about these men even two decades later. My response applies to all four proposed deletions. You could make your same (weak, in my opinion) argument for any number of 9/11 figures, and then all we'd be left with are 19 redundant articles about the same Middle Eastern loser. The event was as much an attack as it was a response, and what were essentially miracles of survival and/or people fighting back are as much a feature of the event as the attacks themselves and their inclusion is warranted here. Separately from my response to your proposal, considering the time, this was an extremely insensitive thing to do and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Mary Samsonite (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least for Will Jimeno I can't see a justification to deletion. There was a large article on his life events after 9/11 that came out in a national publication (Politico) for the 20th Anniversary, and it noted he has a published book, has done motivational speaking around the country etc. It would seem he is more notable than simply a random individual who died in the collapse of the towers and has a specific fame beyond just the fact he survived the collapse. Eth19508029 (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this whole nomination feels like it was done in bad faith, and the disregard for BLP (there's a rather large difference between "fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines" and "there is nothing notable about [person]") or WP:BEFORE. Jimeno clearly meets the GNG, having been profiled in Politico. As for the others, you could probably make the case that being portrayed in an Oliver Stone movie is evidence that person meets our notability guideline. Similarly, having received a significant national award like the 9/11 Heroes Medal of Valor also suggests notability (regardless of what one might think about some of the post-9/11 awards). Guettarda (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this nomination is a good example of when a potentially valid nomination turns into a trainwreck due to the bundling of an obviously notable article. Curbon7 (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that we have deleted articles on many equally brave individuals who have been decorated for their courage in action or otherwise. I'd be interested in an explanation as to why these people are notable and the others are not. Because reading this AfD, it does seem that some sort of special case is being made for them because they were involved in the events of 9/11 and were portrayed in a film about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, these people have clearly received plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Men Are Like Waffles — Women Are Like Spaghetti

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

One of a range of books by these authors--this has particularly few reviews and library holdings (about 200 worldcat, which for books of this genre is very low). I have been unable to find any serious reviews in a major publiation. . DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. I can't even find a single review of it online. Perhaps the co-authors might merit a wiki article considering they appear to have a "body of work" on this kind of subject matter, but that remains to be seen and this book alone certainly doesn't meet Wikipedia notability thresholds for its own article. Softlavender (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fail GNG clearly. 117.18.230.34 (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG failure clone of Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. Nate • (chatter) 05:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found some mention of it in this Newspapers.com article, but it's more about the concept rather than the book. Other than that the mentions seem to be more about the authors doing signings and appearances where they talk about the book. There's just not much out there that isn't primary, junk hits, or places to buy the book. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 06:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ewan Urain

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

Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The references look good. Perhaps he passes WP:GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Definitely fails FOOTY at this point (despite the disingenuous comment by the creator "created page as the player has joined the first team" - he is still solidly with the reserve squad, hasn't even been on the bench for the senior team). As above, may pass GNG due to a few articles in national media on him playing for Scotland (or being selected for the squad I should say, since they didn't bother putting him on the field on Tuesday). Crowsus (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - probably scrapes through GNG with the Scotsman article. Giant Snowman 17:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep scrapes through WP:GNG further subject is 21 years and has a ongoing career hence see little point in deleting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage from cited sources as well as One Football, AS, El Correo and La Sexta is likely enough for GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, added a couple of those. Crowsus (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see the issues here, but on balance I think he meets notability on level of coverage he has received. Also as a player involved with Under-21 squad, he is likely someone that people would search Wikipedia to find out more about. Dunarc (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as coverage is borderline GNG and subject has potential. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has received significant coverage from national media.Jackattack1597 (talk)

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. – Joe (talk) 08:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy La Candy

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

Single event doesn't establish enough notability for an article. WP:ONEEVENT/WP:ITEXISTS/WP:NBIO/WP:TOOSOON/WP:NOTNEWS etc... — IVORK _Talk 00:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — IVORK _Talk 00:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — IVORK _Talk 00:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — IVORK _Talk 00:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Kaizenify (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a single event. Note the range of dates on the references. Another editor, Kaizenify (talk · contribs · count), posted this as an an edit summary, and I agree: The subject is a prominent transgender in a country with hostility to LGBT and has tried to remain a voice for the community. I would remove the sentence with her former name. We generally avoid using deadnames.Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She is not living in Nigeria. Additionally if she really is that prominent, far more detail and sourcing is required. Past articles are just a paragraph talking about her Instagram posts. Miss Sahhara is different entirely, having been the first publicly open trans-woman, being directly effected by Nigerian laws and having won awards from international modelling competitions. — IVORK _Talk 03:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem notable. J0ngM0ng (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think she is notable. 117.18.230.34 (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments, she is not notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With sources like Pulse and Dailypost shows some relevance and according to Legit.ng here, their sexuality has encouraged more queer persons which makes them significance in a country against LGBT laws. And hence passes WP:ANYBIO. Dfertileplain (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: She doesn't meet the criteria for WP:ANYBIO by any means. ExRat (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. I fail to see how she is notable. She seems to have caused some very minor press tittering in Nigeria and that's it. ExRat (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Additionally, most of the sources should be disqualified based on WP:NOTTABLOID.4meter4 (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mann+Hummel. There is consensus that this isn't a notable topic, but not consensus to delete outright. It's up to editors to determine whether they want to merge any sourced and relevant content from the history. Sandstein 19:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Affinia Group

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

Everything in the article is the sort of content which would be of no interest to anyone not connected with the firm--I don't think this would be of interest even to its customers.Its sourced to mere announcements--even the 2 nyt itrms are just announcement of the sale of the firm DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the sources in the article, this seems to pass the WP:GNG - this is clearly significant coverage in reliable sources. The article could be improved, of course, but it seems relatively non-promotional and certainly notable to me. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Butthe rule for business firms is no longer the very weak GNG but WP:NCORP, which excludes articles whose referencing only covers acquisitions and funding. It was intended to removejust this type of article. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except the coverage we have for this subject isn't limited to "acquisitions and funding". And the idea - clearly - is to require more substantive coverage than word-for-word reprints of press releases and mundane coverage of statutory announcements and statements that every company is required to make. That a company makes an announcement that then receives significant coverage in reliable sources, does not make that coverage routine, nor does it make that coverage not independent, nor does it make that coverage inappropriate for the purposes of WP:CORPDEPTH. But beyond all that, WP:NCORP isn't a "rule", and it doesn't supersede WP:GNG. Some people would like it to, but GNG is our baseline notability threshold. "It passes WP:GNG" is a perfectly valid argument. You're absolutely free to argue that the community should apply WP:NCORP instead (or ahead), of course. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except "significant coverage in reliable sources" is only half of the requirement, it must also contain "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND and when you strip out the information provided by the company and connected people, what's left says nothing. And when you say NCORP isn't a "rule" ... well neither is GNG, they're both guidelines with the same standing, GNG may be the "default" in the absence of a guideline for a specialty topic but even if you want to go down that road, there's the WP:SNG section found in GNG which explicitly explains why speciality guidelines exist in the first place and it doesn't say "Ignore them if you don't like them". They are just as much a part of our community-driven consensus-derived process and GNG. So if you're one of the NCORP haters and want to return to only having to refer to GNG, you'll also have to ignore that part of GNG which explicity mentions the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. And for sure "It passes GNG" is a valid argument at AfD and has been used to great effect by a certain cabal of "Keep" !voters, but if you check their AfD stats you'll start to see their !voting stats are very poor - that is the company you will be keeping. While it is up to each closer to decide on which arguments to include, the least we (the experienced editors who are trying to improve the project) can do here is make sure we're arguing honestly with the guidelines in mind. If you don't like the NCORP guidelines - and it is clear you don't - then argue for change rather than pollute AfD with deliberate and disruptive avoidance of NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course its independent; they didn't interview themselves. And arguments as to deletionist cabals running Wikipedia should be taken with a bucket of salt. We've seen attempts to apply WP:NCORP to all sorts of things of late (including sporting teams and geographic locations). That doesn't make it sensible. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per commentary above and the extensive coverage available online (which is exactly what you would expect for a company with 10,000+ employees). The fact that executives of the company are are asked for their opinion of subjects completely unrelated to the company's primary business (like here in CIO (magazine)) suggests the company is notable among non-industry peers. Ironically, I think it probably passes WP:NCORP anyway, but it certainly passes WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. You've gone off the rails if you think a circular argument of "Oh, that company must be notable because their company executive was interviewed in a magazine because they surely only asked that executive's opinion because the company is notable". HighKing⁺⁺ 21:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the basis of our notability guidelines (all of them) is that something has been the subject of note by people beyond Wikipedia. All of our guidelines are different variations of tools to assess the extent of that note. Those that are not the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent sources are generally considered to have gone unnoticed, or to have made a contribution to their field that isn't worthy of note. As such, when something tries to promote itself, it isn't worthy of note, and hasn't been noticed by others; it has drawn attention to itself. When someone independent seeks information about a subject (even when they ask someone connected to the subject, because how else are they going to be sure the information is accurate?) they have taken note of the subject. We, in turn, reference a subject having received "significant coverage"; that is, the notice the subject has received is genuine and specific, and not just a passing glance (like when something is listed along with a bunch of other similar things or receives incidental routine coverage). When someone interviews someone about something (a perfectly normal journalistic practice, in fact, the very basis of modern journalistic practice) they are giving note to that something and have spent their own time and effort (independent of the subject) to find out more about that subject. The fact that they chose to ask an expert on that subject does not make them no longer independent, does not make the person they interviewed the "source" (which remains the journalist and publication), and does not make the coverage promotional. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and if any of the Keep !voters want to point out which specific parts of those articles contains "Independent Content" I'm happy to review. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mann+Hummel as ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 04:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG and HighKing fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:per nom and HighKing. The company fails NCORP. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 20:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Mann+Hummel as ATD.4meter4 (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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