Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scope creep (talk | contribs) at 22:38, 22 September 2021 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Zapata.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< September 21 September 23 >

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. Geschichte (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Zapata

Jasmine Zapata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, Beccaynr. Please expand the article accordingly. scope_creepTalk 09:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that this venue is WP:NOTCLEANUP. As the nominator, you have the same (or perhaps greater) obligation to improve the article. pburka (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to expand this article, and currently working on it - I usually tend to wait for at least one other participant !voting keep in an AfD discussion before I attempt WP:HEY, but with scope_creep's encouragement, I am going for it. Beccaynr (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with pburka. The onus is not on an AfD voter to add those sources to the article. Many if not all of those sources could have been identified in a WP:BEFORE by the nominator. TJMSmith (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with pburka, but had interpreted the request as specifically directed at me, and maybe informed by my general history at AfD, and/or maybe what I have posted in the Selected Work section of my userpage, or my self-identification as one of the editors known for behaving like dogs spotting squirrels. I also sometimes accept requests to help expand articles at my Talk page, and with the above feedback in mind, that seems like a better forum for future requests. I do review AfD to find articles to improve, and I apologize for how my enthusiasm for a wide-open field of squirrel contravened the general process. Beccaynr (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. While there was significant support for deleting the article, much of it was based on the place not being inhabited. After JPxG's evidence that it was inhabited, opinions shifted towards keeping the article. (non-admin closure) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murrays Crossroads, Georgia

Murrays Crossroads, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eastmain, I think we should be cautious about using Findagrave for this sort of thing. Aside from being unreliable as a user-generated source (see WP:RSP), three of the cemeteries in the list are some distance from the crossroads [1][2][3]; one does not show a specific location but appears to be a family burial plot [4]; and the only one at the crossroads is just a single grave [5]. I'm not sure how they came up with their location categorization but many similar sites use an algorithm to identify the closest named point on the map without any vetting to make sure it's actually a community. Even if we take Findagrave at face value, keep in mind that cemeteries are often found in areas with dispersed populations and don't necessarily indicate the presence of a community. –dlthewave ☎ 21:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whether a redirect is merited will be left up to a separate editorial decision. ✗plicit 23:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jot Em Down Store, Georgia

Jot Em Down Store, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - GNIS describes it as a locale and there's no evidence that this was ever anything more than a country store. The article history is quite revealing and is an excellent example of how Wikipedia manufactures unincorporated communities out of whole cloth. The original version [6], though unsourced and written by an inexperienced editor, sounds plausible: "... not an actual town, but actually just a local landmark that citizens use for navigation purposes. Due to its navigation uses, it is often referred to in map and atlas listings." But then someone who'd been around long enough to know better inexplicably rewrote [7] the whole thing as an unincorporated community, still with no sourcing whatsoever! This type of behavior creates a huge workload at AfD and was never acceptable, even in the early days when expectations were much lower. –dlthewave ☎ 04:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NGEO. If anyone finds anything ping me. I was unable. Google populates all sorts of flower sellers and weather reports which mention fictional place. Lightburst (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this describes someone from the "Jot Em Down Community" and this also is related to a "Jot Em Down" community. However, I didn't find much coverage besides that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Masterhatch (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be, well, a store. No indication of notability. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gilmer County, Georgia, since it seems fairly borderline; people are familiar with Jot 'em Down's Seed and Feed (formerly Chuck's, perhaps). Newspaper sources confirm this, with a 2014 story mentioning that there's one in Forsyth County, and that "a Jot Em Down Store was so popular in Pierce County that the unincorporated community was named "Jot Em Down", according to "Georgia Place-Names"." Doesn't seem like it warrants an article in its own right, but it could be useful as a navigational aid. jp×g 17:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It ought to be noted that the 2014 story I mentioned is the same one linked earlier by BeanieFan. jp×g 17:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Ponthier

Allison Ponthier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, Beccaynr. Maybe you can update the article? scope_creepTalk 09:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ExRat: The subject is a one hit wonder, with no coverage, no reviews of her music. The coverage that is there, is due to a viral hit, that is all. There is no coverage apart from that and because musicbio, cng are so degraded in terms of what is acceptable now, it is unlikey that the article would have been deleted. It is unfortunate we are becoming a listing service, a directory for crap. 10 year ago it would have needed some reviews of the work and some history of excellece over a sustained period. Now, because they are mentioned in a few place, they are not notable. She is not notable, but the article can't be deleted. Wikipedia is becoming a version of Everything 2. The founders knew this would happen and were aware of this effect over the long term. scope_creepTalk 20:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article when nominated for deletion presented Ponthier as if her only claim to notability was based on her work with Lord Huron, essentially a variation of the classic WP:NOTBYRELATION issue that from my view, could reasonably support an AfD discussion. I am working on expanding the article, and it appears she has a body of work that has been independently reported on, along with biographical information that supports a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goose Island, Georgia

Goose Island, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom.Masterhatch (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG, and fails WP:GEOLAND - there doesn't seem to be an island on the lake that this could plausibly refer to. BilledMammal (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Newspaper sources are badly confounded by the presence of a Goose Island in Chicago; even when restricting the search to sources from Georgia, this is still the vast bulk of results. There are 160 of them, from Fulton, Muscogee, Bibb and Troup County (none from Gilmer County, where the alleged island is located). There is a Goose Island near Kansas City, a Goose Island near the Atlantic coast in North Carolina, a Goose Island in Illinois, et cetera. Nothing referred to by that name in Georgia. So what about the island itself? Per USGS maps, from 1888 to 1911 there wasn't even a lake at those coordinates. In 1935 they don't seem to have finished drawing the quadrangle (this is quite bizarre and I've never seen it before). At any rate, in 1946 there is a "Goose Island" labelled on the map, but it sure as heck isn't an island (as, still, there is no lake indicated). By 1988, the lake has finally decided to show up; there are indeed a couple of very small islands on the northern end, but they are nowhere near the "Goose Island" label; they seem to be gone by 2011 regardless. What I'm taking away from all this is that Goose Island was the name of something or other (since the lake is named Goose Island Lake), but it wasn't a populated community, and it wasn't an island. jp×g 17:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:GEOLAND.4meter4 (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fouts Mill, Georgia

Fouts Mill, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 Macon County, Georgia. ✗plicit 13:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barrons Lane, Georgia

Barrons Lane, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a railroad crossing, no houses or buildings in the vicinity. I doubt this is a community. wizzito | say hello! 22:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barretts Mill, Georgia

Barretts Mill, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Masterhatch (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; it doesn't seem to be an inhabited place now, and per newspaper results, it doesn't seem to ever have been. It's referred to as a mill in every source I can find: in 1885, "Mr. E. A. Carter exhibited in down an alligator which he killed while it was asleep on a log at Barrett's mill pond with a blow from a rail, on Tuesday. The gator was eight feet long, and had an ugly look about him". In 1886, "a negro at Binns & Barrett's mill had his finger cut off last Tuesday by the saw". In 1891, "the dam out at Barrett's mill, on Walnut branch, near Waynesboro, is gone". Later we find two mentions of a bridge over Barretts Mill creek. I do not see evidence of a populated place, only that unfortunate accidents were visited upon a man, an alligator, and a dam on three Tuesdays in the late 1800s. jp×g 17:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and JPxG.4meter4 (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Altamaha Place, Georgia

Altamaha Place, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's a decent amount of coverage for Altamaha Park, which seems to consist of a mobile home park with a public boat launch and campground, but I couldn't find any results whatsoever for Altamaha Place. Nothing on the map, no archived news articles, not even the typical autogenerated stuff. –dlthewave ☎ 23:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: Altamaha Park and Altamaha Place have the same GNIS ID, which would indicate either some sort of error or an alternate name for the same place. –dlthewave ☎ 23:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As dlthewave mentions, the GNIS entry referenced by the article is for "Altamaha Park", not "Altamaha Place". There are no newspaper mentions of "Altamaha Place", ever; it seems like this was a typographic error in the creation of the article. When you search "Altamaha Park", there are several results, but they seem to be referring to a place in Toombs County (like this 1969 mention). It also mentions here that it's a recreation area on the Altamaha River, so I think it's possible that there are lots of different parks along the same river being referred to by this name. There does exist a website for the Altamaha Regional Park, which mentions 56 campsites; this park has five newspaper mentions. At any rate, however, that's for Altahama Regional Park; "Altamaha Place" seems to simply not exist. jp×g 17:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Wizzito, and JPxG.4meter4 (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 18:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abernathys Mill, Georgia

Abernathys Mill, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a real place. Google only produces Wikipedia mirrors and generic things that pulls from GNIS. Coordinates lead to a place near a highway with a few houses. The highway map listed has Abernathys Mill on it, but lists it not as a populated place... but instead as a bridge. wizzito | say hello! 22:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to be a mill mislabeled as a populated place. The 1960 topo shows a building in/on the river as one would expect of a mill, and it also appears in two real estate listings from the 1980s [8][9]. None of this comes close to meeting the Significant Coverage requirements of WP:GEOLAND/WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 23:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Haralson County, Georgia. Newspaper results show that an "Abernathy Mill" does exist historically, but even going back to the dawn of recorded history the 1800s, all I can find is stuff along the lines of "Abernathy's mill located on this river five miles north of Buchanan" (1931), "Graveside services for Mrs. Julius (Frances Kearney) Hughes of Abernathy Mill Road (1974), "The historic Abernathy Mill [...] built in 1830" (1982). Expanding the search to neighboring Alabama brings up "the property known as the Abernathy Mill" (1876), but it's not clear this is the same place, since in 1876 the Alabama papers said that "the building known as the Abernathy mill has been torn down". I don't see anything to support the existence of this as a populated area. It does, however, seem quite clear to me that there really is (was?) an Abernathy's Mill in Haralson County. jp×g 17:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krakoa

AfDs for this article:
Krakoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 22:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But Krakoa does not appear in the MCU. Haleth (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Features of the Marvel Universe would also work, then? ;) BOZ (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's the link I meant to use. Thanks BOZ. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is before we even start counting various pop culture and entertainment websites and outlets that discuss Krakoa in a less serious manner. I did not bother with a Google Books search because a lot of false positives came up, with lots of results for the X-Men source material itself. There is this book which provides some helpful insight into its concept and development. jc37 is spot on, this topic represents a major though recent milestone from Marvel's canon, and the sources I highlighted are very recently published. Haleth (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I took the trouble to find viable sources and bring the attention of the participants to the said sources, I would most certainly be utilizing them, unless another editor in this discussion is keen to do the work of writing prose instead. Wikipedia's notability guideline is quite clear that WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN are important considerations when deciding whether a particular topic is presumed to merit an article. Your response seem to indicate that you just want this topic's article to disappear from mainspace, regardless of whether the sourcing constitutes WP:SIGCOV from reliable and independent sources. Haleth (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the secondary sources found. The current state of an article is not decisive when considering deletion. I wonder if a proper search according to WP:BEFORE, a central part of the deletion nomination process, was done when "There are no reliable third-party sources cited that discuss it" is stated despite some of the sources found be Haleth appear in e.g. the Google Scholar search. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"no reliable third-party sources cited" (emphasis mine) makes me think you are right to wonder. BOZ (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 VIXX. Can be restored if better sourcing is found. Sandstein 06:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MyDOL

MyDOL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted because it's a non-notable TV show. This article failed WP:NTV, which doesn't deserve to be included on Wikipedia. Based on what I searched, it's very hard to find the program, which is one of the main factors this article should be deleted. With that being said, I don't want this article on Wikipedia. A2013a (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning to keep - "I don't want this article on wikipedia" is not an appropriate deletion argument. It's a literal statement of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. On my end, I can't read Korean, so I can't check for additional native language sources than we already see in the article. I hope we have some AfD participants who can more helpfully search. I don't think at face value it fails NTV (it's on a nationally broadcast TV network), and being difficult to google is not a valid reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Matt91486.4meter4 (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to encourage evaluation of Korean sources to determine notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this AfD has not seen much activity, nobody else has found sources, and my own WP:BEFORE searches have come up empty, so we are left with what's in the article now. Surely, phoenix-vixx-fire.tumblr.com and youtube.com are not reliable sources that show notability. The other site, "enewsworld", has no author information and no editorial information, so is likely either user-generated or a blog. This leaves us with allkpop.com, which is a user-generated site (their main page has a "create post" button above a Reddit-esque layout with downvotes and upvotes displayed beside posts). There seems to be no indication on the site of an editorial team, or even an editorial process. The people who posted the posts referenced by the article are webe, starsung and Germaine Jay, who does seem to be a staff writer, but that leaves us with only one allkpop reference, a passing mention in a four-sentence long post primarily about something that isn't MyDOL. Soompi does mention that it's a news site, but the source from Soompi doesn't mention "MyDOL" once. jp×g 00:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: in the event that consensus is not to keep the article, it seems at least to be a valid search term... would a redirect to VIXX make sense, given that the program was entirely about their formation? Richard3120 (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to VIXX. My search for sources (even in Korean) did not yield significant coverage of this survival competition show. There were stories about actress Kim Yoo-jung being in a promotional video for the forthcoming program [10] and singer Sung Si-kyung (who was signed to Jellyfish Entertainment at the time, the agency behind the show, and therefore not independent of the subject) mentioning it [11]. There is the trivial tidbit of the show being available on Pandora TV [12]. There are sources that explain what the show is and how contestants would be selected [13], the elimination of four contenders [14], and the confirmation of the remaining six [15]. The individual episodes didn't get coverage, nor did there seem to be interest in general at the time. After the last episode was aired, there are drive-by mentions of "VIXX was formed through MyDol" or "X, who was on MyDol, is going to debut". Not enough content to sustain its own article. ✗plicit 07:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tom Langmyer

Tom Langmyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bands Reunited. There's an obvious consensus that the article subject fails GNG; and no reasons or policy based argument has been given as to why a redirect would be unsuitable. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Haleem

Aamer Haleem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Emily Reo

Emily Reo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maine, Maine

Maine, Maine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 21:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 21:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 21:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like either "Maines Siding" or "Maine Siding" turns up anything useful either; almost all of the results are either local siding businesses or OCR mistakes. (And of course Maine on its own is impossible to search.) Even if the name was correct, it may have been little more than a railroad siding that got a road named after it. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. Seddon talk 01:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bing guo

Bing guo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since it's inception in 2007, this Beijing dessert comes up in absolutely no English sources. I pursued the possibility of a merge with a similar dessert, Talk:Baobing, but there was no connection. I finally found a source on a page of the official Beijing tourism website, but the dates don't confirm who came first. Either this is a copy-vio (please see talk page for more info) or this fails WP:V. Sounds tasty though. Estheim (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding the copy-vio issue, I checked the tourism website and it's a perfect match of the 2010 version, but not the original 2007 version of the article. So it is likely the website took the content from Wikipedia without attribution. Jumpytoo Talk 23:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unsourced, and I've never heard of anything called Bing Guo as a dessert, nor is there any evidence (not even unreliable sources) that points this "dessert" to Beijing. An image search also doesn't have anything concrete either, whether in Chinese or English. The fact it's unsourced already warrants the delete.Kazuha1029 (talk)
  • delete. I tried searching for 冰果 but it only turned up anime, primarily Hyouka which has an oddly similar name. Nothing on the desert. 2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:F8FC:3D1D:E982:7C1E (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and comment Searching for variations of "冰果" online and masking references to the anime, it seems like the term is simply used for desserts using ice cream (or more generally a cold preparation) and fruit, i.e. popsicles, fruit salads, smoothies, slushies, etc. In other words, it's not one dish but an umbrella term. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to be limited to any region. However, the dish in the article does seem to exist. After a bit of auto-translation shenanigans, I was able to boil the term "河鲜儿冰果" down, roughly translating to "hexianer ice bowl", "hexianer" being the mix of ingredients described in the article. Multiple internet sources do say it's a Beijing/Shanghai specialty, but even then, they either are in the form of independent cooking blogs or social media (Weibo/Baidu) posts. While it exists, it's not at ALL notable even outside of the confusion of terms. Toyota Impreza (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move to Bing wan Did some more searching and the dish does exist, but under a different name. There are enough Chinese sources to meet WP:GNG, but the article should be moved to the actual name.
  • "老北京时令小吃冰碗冰盘曾价值不菲-中新网". Beijing Daily. Retrieved 2021-09-28.
  • "炎威暑气蒸 水晶冰碗儿(图)_新浪旅游_新浪网". Sina Corporation. Retrieved 2021-09-28.
Jumpytoo Talk 02:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Büchner

Jens Büchner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesnt seem very notable Rathfelder (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:56, 22 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) 22:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Ferlet

Laurent Ferlet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. See comment by Rathfelder below. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Senait Ghebrehiwet Mehari

Senait Ghebrehiwet Mehari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amman Academy

Amman Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject. A google search of "Amman Academy" -wikipedia returns results that appear to only establish its existence and not its notability. Using the custom search engine only returns 2 results, both of which are parent apps on the Google Play Store. I had put this up for PROD not realizing that it had already undergone PROD before. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 19:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 19:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Collisson

AfDs for this article:
Nancy Collisson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are two more related historical AfD discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Buffy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Buffy (2nd nomination). The Mr. Buffy page is currently a redirect to Collisson's page. pburka (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'VE ASKED YOU TO DELETE THE PAGE AND YOU JUST WON'T DO IT! WHOEVER SAID THAT THE BEST WAY TO GUARANTEE YOUR PAGE WILL STAY IS BY ASKING FOR IT TO BE DELETED, WAS CORRECT. MY GOD WHAT DOES IT TAKE? DELETE IT ALREADY! I'M NANCY COLLISSON AND YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION. AND IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DELETE IT, THEN STOP HUMILIATING ME WITH THIS UGLY THREAT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DELETE THE DAMN PAGE! IT LOOKS SHITTIER THAN IT WOULD WITHOUT YOUR UGLY REMARKS ALL OVER IT. EITHER STICK THE KNIFE IN AND KILL IT OR REMOVE YOUR THREATS!
Please note that we do not have a responsibility to obey your wishes; you have a responsibility to obey our rules. If, say, you had tried to ask for deletion the first time through our proper processes for that, then it might have gone differently than it did — but that was not a failure on our part to meet any responsibility we had, it was a failure on your part to follow the correct process. Especially given that you created the article yourself in the first damn place — so in reality, you wanted a Wikipedia article until you realized that our conflict of interest rules don't permit you to control it, and only then did you change your mind to begin demanding deletion. So know that if you say one more word on Wikipedia in the tone of voice you just tried to pull here, I'm also going to block your editing privileges for violating our civility rules — either you speak to us calmly and with respect, or you go jump off a cliff. The article will be kept or deleted based on our rules, not yours. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it might have helped if the admin who rejected the G12 had actually told the nominator what the correct process was. Our processes are sometimes arcane and difficult-to-discover for newcomers. pburka (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Free Party Canada

AfDs for this article:
Free Party Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per the prior AFD, political parties are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's possible to use primary sourcing to verify that they exist — the notability test is the reception of reliable source coverage about the party in media to get it over WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. The Le Journal de Québec citation is the only one here that's starting to put a foot on the right path — but it doesn't get this to the finish line all by itself if it's the only solid major media source in play and you're otherwise relying on a mixture of primary sources and smalltown community hyperlocals. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUD allows local sources to be utilized to demonstrate notability if at least one national or regional source is included. The sheer amount of local coverage puts this subject across the finish line. Mottezen (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AUD most certainly does not say (or mean) that the moment you can find one decent quality source from major media you're allowed to rely entirely on smalltown community hyperlocals otherwise. Local coverage isn't entirely verboten in Wikipedia, and I never said it was, but local coverage isn't necessarily enough all by itself if it's virtually all that a topic actually has — we do require broad coverage from a variety of major media, not just smalltown pennysavers, and that coverage does have to be analytical in nature rather than just local reportage of election campaign events and results. One national source is merely the starting line, the bare minimum that has to be present just to make the article not speediable — it is not in and of itself the finish line, and does not represent enough coverage to automatically require keeping the article in a full AFD discussion. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article creator here. Didn't realise there was a previous AfD. In my opinion, it's just unencyclopedic to have a party that got 46000 votes (and counting, 1%-2% everywhere it ran) and federally seventh party in terms of support not to have a page. The Le Journal de Québec piece gives plenty of information; I'll look for more and better sources, but there's plenty of regional coverage of particular candidates (and I don't see anything in notability that would disqualify local coverage). In my opinion, someone looking at the 2021 election in 2050 will want to know that this was a "Free from Covid-restrictions" rather than a free trade or a free zoo animals or a correctional reform party. I assume everyone realises, but just for reference, coverage is pretty much all in French so English non-finds not so relevant. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, precedent from similar election results in past elections. Kingofthedead (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What precedent do you think you're talking about? We very definitely don't have any precedent that running candidates in an election is any sort of automatic free notability pass for a fringe political party, so what precedent do you think you're talking about? Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and looked at all Cdn federal elections since 2000 inclusive, and there is no party with over 10,000 votes without a WP page, and most under 1,000 do. The closest is the 2019 Veterans Coalition at 6,300. FPC has more than 7 times that support. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: It’s very easy to find adequate french-language sources on this party on Google. Mottezen (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nearly all of the sources you can find, including many currently used in the article, report the same info you'd find in a campaign flyer, and in the same promotional tone: here's some basic biographical info on the candidate and their vague, idealistic vision of what they'll do if they're elected, with no editorial or critical review whatsoever. Here are some examples:
    1. [17]: "le Parti libre souhaite bâtir une économie locale plus solide, soutenir les aînés pour qu’ils n’aient pas à payer des loyers exorbitants et améliorer l’accès aux services." (Roughly: "The Free Party wants to build a stronger local economy, support seniors so they don't pay exorbitant rents and improve access to services.")
    2. [18]: "Son implication en politique se résume à la maxime suivante : « Je ne changerais pas mes enfants pour rien au monde, mais je changerais le monde pour mes enfants ». ("Her political involvement is summarized by the maxim, 'I would never change my children for anything in the world, but I would change the world for my children.'")
    3. [19]: "La jeune mère de famille veut une démocratie qui laisse plus de place aux jeunes. Elle se définit comme une citoyenne tannée qui veut que ça change." ("The young mother wants a democracy that makes room for youth. She defines herself as a [bold? literally "tanned"] citizen who wants things to change."
    4. [20]: "Le Parti libre prône une démocratie directe et donne la priorités aux enfants, parce qu’au final, on fait ça pour eux. Je pense beaucoup à la prochaine génération." ("The Free Party preaches direct democracy and giving priority to children, because in the end, we do it for them. I think a lot about the next generation.")
    5. [21]: This strange "interview", in which the party's leader rants and raves about the "acidification" of Saint-Sauveur, and actions he would take to "alkalize" the community, which for one is clearly not an interview (the supposed interviewer doesn't ask any questions) and is also not about the Free Party, it's about Leclerc's run for mayor of Saint-Sauveur in 2016.
    These are all clearly press releases written by the Party, given to local papers for free publicity, which the local papers print with minimal review (see the second bullet under WP:NEWSORG, or churnalism more generally). Also notice how the candidate photos used in the article are the same ones that appear on the Party's website. They cannot be used to establish notability: they are not independent, and rather than evidence that the organization attracts any level of local or regional attention, they are evidence that the Party has a marketer on staff.
    That all being said, the remaining few sources suggest an organization that may be worthy of inclusion in a List of minor political parties in Canada if such a list existed (there is such a list for Israel and I'm sure others must exist). But there is just not enough reliably-sourceable information on this party to warrant an entire article. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You highlighted the worst of these articles in the list above, but here are better local sources currently in the article. While they mostly rely on information given by the Free party or the candidates themselves, the majority of local sources in the article are not republished press releases, but firmly secondary sources. One of them was even republished by the Canadian Press. Mottezen (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:PEIsquirrel tanné(e) means "fed up" in Qc French.
Interviews, in which somebody directly associated with the party is answering questions in the first person, are not support for notability — a source has to be third party analysis, written in the third person, to be legitimate support for notability. This is because notability is not a measure of the things the article says, it's a measure of the extent to which sources without a vested interest in promoting their own activities have analyzed and assessed the significance of the things it says. So notability is not "the party did stuff", it's "the party garnered a certain specific type, depth, volume and range of media coverage about the stuff it did". Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat It seems to me that Notability doesn't say it needs to be analytical. In reality the range of coverage that needs to be met is a judgment call around what constitutes 'significance.' The party gets voted for enough and covered in minor ways in third-party reliable sources (Radio-Canada, TVA, Journal du Quebec, small broadcasters and papers) enough for me to deem that it is significant, but not for you. Fair enough. But there isn't actually a specific type or depth or volume. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, when a political party runs in 60 ridings and gets tens of thousands of votes, I don’t care about whether it meets a SNG designed to exclude ad-like articles or not. Mottezen (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing you have to keep in mind is that sometimes sources that look like news coverage are actually still just thinly-veiled rewrites of the party's own self-published press releases about itself rather than coverage that actually establishes notability. Sources don't just have to verify facts, they have to establish the significance of said facts — for example, the mayor of a town or city is not automatically notable just because you can find one news article verifying her winning vote totals in the mayoral election, and instead establishing the notability of a mayor requires substantive coverage of specific things she did in the role. So notability is not "the facts can be verified", it is "a reason can be shown why the preservation of said facts in an encyclopedia for posterity is important". Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The result this party got in the election is reason enough to keep this encyclopedic article. Users have to keep in mind that this party did not even have a website one month ago. WP:NORG's otherwise justified emphasis on the quality of sources used in articles is too burdensome in this case, and can be ignored. Mottezen (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was indifferent on the first AfD, but there seems to be enough sources now. Plus, I think they did surprisingly well in the election for a fringe party (they won more votes than the Greens in a number of ridings), so I believe there is an encyclopedic need for this article, as I think people will be curious about what they're all about and why the did so well.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From what I can determine, the party won a significant percentage of the vote in several ridings, and especially in Quebec. Even if the party does not see success in the next election, it will remain historically relevant for the results of this election. The National Citizens Alliance has an extensive article of 25000 bytes which is 50 bytes for every vote it received.
Gardez. D'après ce que je peux déterminer, le parti a remporté un pourcentage important du vote dans plusieurs circonscriptions, et surtout au Québec. Même si le parti ne connaît pas de succès lors de la prochaine élection, il restera historiquement pertinent pour les résultats de cette élection. Alliance nationale des citoyens a un article étendu de 25000 octets, soit 50 octets pour chaque vote qu'elle a reçu. CactusRoy (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have undone the inappropriate early closure by a new editor. Please let the AfD run its normal 7-day course. Also, this is the English WP and comments should be in English, not in another language. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential discussion about the use of English in AfD debates.
Is the use of English-only a requirement? Seems an unnecessary restriction in the day of right-click, translate. Nfitz (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you,I agree it's not necessary. I write first in French, Then I use Google Translate and put the English first. I leave the French, so you can determine my exact meaning.CactusRoy (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ENGLISHPLEASE. If you cannot write in English except by using online translation, then you should consider contributing to the French WP. Machine translations are not acceptable in article space and may confuse discussions on talk pages. You cannot assume that other editors will understand your original French to check your translation. Now please take this discussion elsewhere, this is not the place for it. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENGLISHPLEASE says "If using another language is unavoidable, try to provide a translation." User:CactusRoy's English translation was easy to understand, and it's reasonable to assume that an article about a Quebec matter will attract bilingual editors who can look at the French original if there's a difficulty with the translation. Your response might not be the best way of welcoming a new user. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilawyering aside, it's obvious that the intent of ENGLISHPLEASE is that editors should use English. The exception is for cases where a source in another language is quoted directly, not for discussion at AfD by an editor who doesn't speak English. And, again, this is NOT the place to discuss this issue, this is an AfD, so I am going to collapse this irrelevant discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a distressing level of Anglo-chauvinism from User:Randykitty. According to your user page, you visited in Quebec. Then how can you visit here, and have such disrespect ? French is the language of my Ancestors. I will speak French when and where I should desire to do it. I used my civil right to free speech as a Quebecker to close the discussion. You are an Angloid, The fact that you feel a right to comment on this issue is a grave insult. Then you should be glad, you are not here in person with me. When Quebec is FREE and WHOLE we will not have this problem of stupid tabarnak anglo like you. CactusRoy (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For reference to the closer - and any Admin who want's to block (bloc?) User:CactusRoy for breaking the civility rules here, tabernaq anglo, is Quebec French and essentially means "fucking English people". Nfitz (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock Your pun on Bloc Québécois is not funny. The oppression of Francophones in the false-state of 'Canada' is a serious issue and you cannot fix it by making jokes. Wikipedia is a jovial setting and not a courthouse, I reserve the right to use my native language in all its capacities. I am remaining civil with my respected Anglo opponent. And as you see, now I am replying in English only. CactusRoy (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a jovial setting, but you don't like my pun? That's no fun.
I'm the one defending your right to use French. Is the "na.." word still acceptable in Canadian English? On a more serious topic - I was surprised there was no French version of this article (there should be!) Nfitz (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There are enough reliable sources cited to establish notability. Sources do not have to be exclusively in English. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another language tangent
Thanks for your support brother. Seems there are enough fools around here but you are not one of them. If it is Quebec party, then the source can be in English, or French, or in any other language as you have many enwiki articles with sources in foreign languages on foreign topics. CactusRoy (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody ever said that sources needed to be in English. Indeed, sources can be in any language, as long as they are reliable. It's the discussion here that should be understandable for every participant. And your previous remarks (in the collapsed section) were not exactly civil with on top of that a veiled threat of bodily harm. You got a "level 2" warning for that, but should realize that I could just as well could have taken you to WP:ANI and have you blocked for that. But it seems like you got the message and I look forward to see your contributions to Quebec-related topics (or indeed any topic of your liking). --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the comment was bilingual, anyone who reads either language could understand it. Puisque le commentaire était dans les deux langues, tous qui sont capables de lire l'une ou l'autre ont pu comprendre. 10:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
No, the French was given "so you can determine my exact meaning", with a machine-translation to English. And while machine translations are quite good nowadays, they are still far from perfect, so only if you understand French can you be certain what the comment exactly says. And can we now please stop commenting on this side issue and concentrate on the AfD discussion? --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give this in only one language so you can "determine my exact meaning." You started the tangential discussion with a pointless rebuke in response to an unambiguous comment from a new Wikipedian on a language-use matter that was sure to be politically sensitive. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be enough independent significant RS to pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did look at this initially and think of closing, but given strong opposition expressed by a few, I felt better to !vote. The publicly expressed political interests of sizable segments of a population are inherently notable. To be crude this is quantitative: if we have political parties receiving more votes than the populations of some nation states (eg Monaco, Faroe, Marshall Islands) whose politicians are accorded presumed notability under NPOL we should resolve this inconsistency in favour of inclusion and not deletion of the similarly small. Located in context (COVID-19/surge in populist right politics/fringe anti-science/well-being politics) this is a political phenomenon attracting electoral support worthy of note. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to have enough coverage + participation in election grants it some amount of historical significance. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Peterson

Guy Peterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable run of the mill architect, sourced to black hat SEO with meaningless word salad style awards PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 22 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) 22:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Evidence has been presented, albeit late in the discussion, that this individual meets GNG, and as such arguments based on ANYBIO, and their rebuttals, are largely moot.
A few notes, since the notability of this entire group is being examined at the moment: there is no consensus on whether this individual is notable as a result of the award the Tuskegee airmen received. There is no consensus on whether being a member of this group is by itself sufficient, though the arguments in favor of this notion are stronger. Finally, it's very difficult to give any weight to arguments based on ATD and PRESERVE in these sorts of discussions, because those policies have nothing to say about the question of whether a standalone article should be kept or merged into a larger, and more obviously notable, topic. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Ross

Mac Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not RS is why. Mztourist (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The CAF sources have been removed, they are not needed to establish notability. -- GreenC 04:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same generic Tuskegee airmen filler, nothing detailed about him. Mztourist (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. Cooper, Charlie; Cooper, Ann (1996). Tuskegee's Heroes. United States: Zenith Imprint. p. 84. ISBN 9781610607605. ISBN 1610607600. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You think that is an RS? It also looks like this page is a copyvio from it Mztourist (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, shifting grounds. No reason to delete cited or exists. If there is a copy vio, that can be fixed, and is no reason to delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "That's some catch, that Catch-22!" Andrew🐉(talk) 14:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No shifting grounds at all. My nom made it clear that the page creator was indeffed for copyvio. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The CAF page for this pilot is a joke...poorly written and garbled in many places (the page for his wife is much better, but again you have the question of RS, and I've found errors in other CAF pages for Tuskegee pilots while cleaning copyvio in articles that were retained). And Together We Served is based on user submissions as well. Aside from namecheck in other sources (and oddly no one seems to be able to produce an RS for his DFC aside from the TWS site), there's a major lack of RS. Intothatdarkness 22:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The CAF sources have been removed. Feel free to delete anything with "cite needed" not needed. -- GreenC 04:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your disparagement of the sources is unwarranted. In any event, Eugene Bullard served in the French military, not with the U.S. So he counts, but not in the way you propose. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the lead was misleading, which I have fixed, but even so the sources are unclear on this point. Intothat correctly notes that CAF is based on user submissions so it is not a reliable source. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my evaluation of CAF. I've found errors in their articles while cleaning up copyvios in this slew of articles. Intothatdarkness 14:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem CAF is deleted. No longer needed. -- GreenC 04:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable and reliable secondary sources abound. Jamesallain85 (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only that pair of two-line paragraphs plus the city resolution seem to indicate any tangible notability, the rest is mostly just fluff. Some of those works which may look reliable from a glance (5 to 11) are only used in that off-topic digression on footnote A, and don't really cover the subject in any meaningful detail. There are also sources which are self-published (Gatling), and others which are not reliable (CAF and TWS, if the as-of-yet unrebutted statements above are correct). Source 1 may be adequate (7&6 thinks so, Mztourist thinks not) despite its short length, but overall that's really not much to go on. Avilich (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gatling has been removed. CAF has been removed. TWS removed (I think). Lots of new sources added. -- GreenC 04:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Avilich. The only claim to potential notability is that the subject was one of several African-American pilots to engage in arial combat for specifically the United States military for the first time. Relevant information from that engagement should be merged in to the larger Tuskegee Airmen article that already exists. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are new sources and new assertions of notability. -- GreenC 04:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His documented role as the first (or in a group of the first who achieved it simultaneously for accuracy) African American combat fighter pilot passes criteria 2 of WP:ANYBIO as we generally document first achievements among minority groups as significant historical achievements within wikipedia. Further, it's not clear to me that the delete votes have convincingly done a competent WP:BEFORE search or seriously read and analyzed the sources available on the subject that have been brought to their attention.4meter4 (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's quite a distortion of facts. The delete voters are the only ones to have done a competent and serious Before – the others have simply thrown around bland statements like 'there are reliable sources' without any elaboration. Your argument is much closer to failing WP:1E than meeting Anybio#2, since the latter explicitly requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Avilich (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering I just had to remove a source that didn't contain any content the link claimed it did (confirmation of Ross' appointment as a squadron commander...the link was to a gallery page containing one of the same photos that appears on the CAF page for Ross with the same caption), I still have doubts about the sourcing of this article (and others like it). I'd say let CAF host poorly-researched biographies. Intothatdarkness 22:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming you're not including the Anime results in that search as part of those "dozens or hundreds of books"? Or the Barbie one? Or the hundreds of simple mentions in photo captions or class rosters (many of which are contemporary and thus possibly primary sources)? And let's not forget the Book of Irish Names. Someone's name in a photo caption does not automatically equal notability, and poor sourcing (like the cite I removed) doesn't add anything to the article. Intothatdarkness 21:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, the dozens/hundreds of books about the Mac Ross, the topic of this AfD, which is pretty obvious. This comment was made in good faith to help readers find reliable sources. I've already found and added 2 more to the article taken from that list. Just as Mac Ross felt that he was on trial every time he flew, anyone voting keep or adding sources can expect resistance at every turn ("Or the Barbie one" sigh). -- GreenC 22:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing Keep voters to Ross strikes me as more than slightly dramatic and likely in bad taste. The basic sourcing of the article remains poor, and the additions don't really speak to his basic notability. As a group, the Tuskegee Airmen are notable. Individually, it varies greatly just like members of any famous or notable military unit. Ross didn't survive the war and go on to higher rank in the Air Force (like other Tuskegee pilots), his DFC isn't sourced anywhere other than Together We Served (and it doesn't appear on their current listing for him) and didn't achieve ace status (which seems to confer automatic notability in AfD). Intothatdarkness 22:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tuskegee airmen are notable based on their wartime contribution and their historic integration of the U.S. Army Air Corps. Tuskegee airmen are also inherently notable based on their collective award The Congressional Gold Medal awarded in 2007. At the minimum we have a an easy pass of WP:ANYBIO. I think the gold medal should end any debate about notability and I have added it to the article with references showing the congressional act and an article which states that the Tuskegee Airmen were posthumously awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. Lightburst (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary source mentions the posthumous award. The Tuskegee Airmen are notable. Lightburst (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An award granted to a group doesn't establish the notability of each individual of that group (especially if it's large), only to the group itself, which already has an article. Avilich (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning each of the up to 20,000 Chinese-American servicemen and 200,000 members of the Civil Air Patrol who served during WWII are also deserving of an article, as do each of the 20,000+ Montford Point Marines who similarly integrated the Marine Corps. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not all 1000, but the first 5 to graduate is a significant stand out from peers. Others were dropped from that first class. It was an historic accomplishment. The article says what a close-run thing it was, how Ross feared being accused of crashing a plane during training and giving critics ammo to say blacks can't fly. They flew under extreme pressure to perform and not make a mistake. Without his leadership the whole program could have been canceled, there were people willing to do so. -- GreenC 03:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to provide RS about Ross to substantiate a claim that "the first 5 to graduate is a significant stand out from peers". I agree with Avilich and GPL93, the arguments by Lightburst and GreenC are essentially that just being a Tuskegee Airmen establishes notability but that is wrong per WP:NOTINHERITED. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here: "Lieutenants Lemuel Custis, Charles DeBow, George Roberts, and Mac Ross were the first four to graduate, in March of 1942, and drew the most sustained attention from the press and the black community as a result."[22] -- GreenC 04:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true then where is it? Thanks for cn tagging the page showing its many deficiencies. Mztourist (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given age, probably not online. I might delete all those sentences, they are mostly not important anyway, but will wait to see what others do with it first. -- GreenC 05:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GPL93 were the 20,000 you mention awarded the Congressional Gold Medal? Lightburst (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: If you are alive when awarded, any living member of the unit/group are eligible to receive one. For instance, when the Borinqueneers Congressional Gold Medal was issued, you were sent medal as long as you could prove that you served in the 65th Infantry Regiment during the Korean War. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So 20,000 was hyperbole? In the case of the Tuskegee Airmen they all awarded even posthumously. In addition they broke the color barrier in the US Army Air Force. Undoubtedly a more significant contribution based on the US History of black white relations. And perhps some of the mentioned deserve articles. We should not penalize one because the other is absent. Cheers Lightburst (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: My apologies as I thought you were talking about receiving a physical copy of the medal. It is technically awarded to all members of the honored group, alive and deceased. So yes, all 20,000 people were honored. Congress is awarding a blanket recognition to the contributions of a group of people when they do this unless they are conferring the medal to specific individuals. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO. Tuskegee Airmen, especially some of the first, are going to be of historical and social interest, notable by virtue of their contribution to civil rights, military treatment of African Americans, and actual military action. It's worth pointing out, I think, that until WWII (and even thereafter) military action involving African Americans (including the Civil War) was often about them, rather than by them. That is, fighting over their rights, enforcing oppression, or responding to civil rights action. The Tuskegee Airmen represent one of the first instances of African Americans in the military, and even then they faced significant barriers and objections. Does keeping this article mean we "risk" having to cover some other Tuskegee Airmen? God, I hope so. We cover a great many people less worthy of note (who have made a considerably less meaningful contribution to their field) and I'm fine with covering a few more of these guys. St★lwart111 05:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No-one disputes that the Tuskegee Airmen as a group are notable, the question is is Mac Ross personally notable? Which of the 3 heads of ANYBIO do you think he satisfies? Mztourist (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2, arguably 1 too. That others have made the same contribution doesn't diminish Ross' contribution. St★lwart111 06:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2 is essentially the matter being debated here. He certainly doesn't satisfy #1 as he didn't receive any such individual award. Mztourist (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Stalwart111Genius level 100. Thank you.Lightburst (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mztourist, sure, and I think he passes #2. But on #1, WP:ANYBIO simply says, "well-known and significant award or honor"; it does not say the award or honour needs to have been an individual one. I agree that an individual award would put it beyond doubt, but just like winning a gold medal as part of a relay team, or winning a significant industry award as part of a team... St★lwart111 01:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
#1 of ANYBIO says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" that means an individual award, not being part of a group that received an award, otherwise every member of every group that recieved a well-known and significant award or honor would qualify, which is not the intention. Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that if it meant that, it would say that. It doesn't though. But yes, every member of a medal-winning sporting team is considered notable. St★lwart111 04:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. On that logic all 1074 Women Airforce Service Pilots, all Montford Point Marines, all 2996 9/11 victims, all 200,000+ Civil Air Patrol members etc. are individually notable. Mztourist (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong? Which part of the guideline did I quote incorrectly? That you would like for it to be interpreted that way doesn't change the wording of that guideline. But yes, by that logic, yes they would. It is up to us to apply common sense. St★lwart111 00:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, completely wrong. The individual needs to receive the award not a group. #1 of ANYBIO states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" if it meant a group then to quote you "if it meant that, it would say that".Mztourist (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you can interpret it that way, but that's not what it says. At all. St★lwart111 00:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely what it says, multiple other users also agree with me on this point. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like many guidelines and policies it is worded intentionally open-ended to leave room for specific cases to go one way or another depending on consensus discussions. No closer will say Stalwart is absolutely wrong, they will note it is a minority opinion in the AfD. Debates over group awards and ANYBIO go back since the start. For example a physics team share a Nobel or 5 people share a major award - that's why ANYBIO doesn't specifically exclude group awards, there are cases people think are OK. Nor does it specify a cut-off number for group size, that's up to consensus. Stalwart's opinion is valid, but it is minority in this AfD. -- GreenC 04:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All true, though I did say (at the start of this sub-thread) that is was "arguable" that he "also" met #1 of WP:ANYBIO, having already met #2. There is no specification in that guideline that the award should be individual, though I agree that's the sensible and common sense standard to apply in most cases. In this case, it's moot anyway. St★lwart111 23:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: thank you, I've incorporated facts from three of these articles. The Black history Month is a reprint of Airmen of Steel. -- GreenC 17:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Congressional Record keeps track of things read into the record in Congress. As such it's arguably a primary source, and subject to bias as well. It doesn't keep track of who was part of the "original five Tuskegee Airmen", it records that someone said he was. Intothatdarkness 23:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I sincerely believe there is enough coverage in reliable, independent sources to warrant notability, though perhaps the coverage is less concentrated and more scattered across RS than other WP:GNG cases. I think things like the Dayton Daily News, The Journal Herald, and the university sites are what we should be leaning into. That said, the article is an absolute mess and all the memorial/blog websites out to be purged (Together We Served, etc.). The Francis 2008 citation that uses 9 different pages is absolutely garbage for WP:VERIFY purposes in that format and the actual pages that support the given information need to be narrowed down. Also note that one can always create a list of Tuskegee airmen, I don't think each one is inherently individually notable, but as a group they are. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have never disputed that the Tuskegee Airmen as a group are notable. There is already List of Tuskegee Airmen and List of Tuskegee Airmen Cadet Pilot Graduation Classes. Mztourist (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting that, at any rate good to know there is a list article where the less notable ones can be merged. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are right there's no question of notability. I've tried to address some of your points by removing some sources and making verification easier. The TWS source remains but now tagged [better source needed] and collapsed into a single cite in one isolated section. I think the most valuable thing of this Wikipedia article from a historical perspective is to get the facts of his death in one place - I doubt the PR agent from the US Post Office was aware of this story or wanted to advertise it when they honored him as a role model for children, though plausible deniability remains. Seems like Col. Davis was trying to cover it up to cover any blame, we'll never know the truth. -- GreenC 19:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a better source for the DFC, honestly. It's odd it's not reported anyplace else (at least someplace that's RS). And I'd still direct interested people to the link in my comment below. Putting the effort in BEFORE these articles reach AfD seems a better use of time, even if it's not seen as glamorous or attention-getting. It also cuts down on drama and poor (frankly offensive) comparisons like the one made earlier in this discussion. Intothatdarkness 23:09, 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 keep. There seems to be general agreement that the title/topic are encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion, even though the list itself needs work. Randykitty (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international common standards

List of international common standards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ike9898 (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have edited the lead-in to more clearly describe what the list is about and what should or shouldn’t be included on the list. I originally created the list because there wasn’t a list which referenced similar standards which can relate to one another, even though the categories of standards included is broad. I understand that the list may seem a loose collection of different categories, I do think this list is of value, useful for education about different standards and for linked reference purposes. RW Marloe (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep International standards are obviously notable and we don't seem to have any other equivalent list. The only issue seems to be the word "common" in the title, which seems unnecessary. But tinkering with the title would be done by a move, not by deletion. See WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indiscriminate and random collection here, seemingly original research of various concepts lumped together. Not sure what makes amino acid codes any more "international" or a "standard" than any other scientific notation, or why the recycling symbol, which is not actually internationally standardized ("countless variants of it exist worldwide"), is a standard any more than countless other widely recognized symbols. Traffic lights are not international standards (List of variations in traffic light signalling and operation), nor is the broad topic of musical notation. Tally marks are done differently all over and are by no means a "standard"! The word "common" is not the only issue, and even without these examples this is absurdly vague and goes beyond just needing clean up and should not be kept in mainspace at the least. Reywas92Talk 03:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just the list of International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards is broken down into at least 25 articles which just list the titles of the standards. This is international standards from just one international standards body. The category Lists of standards contains others, many of which are international. A list of all international standards would be duplicative and better addressed using categories. Ike9898 (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The title of the article is great but the content is random and difficult to understand or navigate. Currently, only technical standards are listed, but basically, anything can be put in this list. I think it should be significantly improved by recategorizing the content and specifying what this article includes at the lead section. nirmal (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. This discussion points to a real need for either a subject notability guideline for eSports teams, or an explicit statement that no SNG applies and it's the GNG or bust. Too much of the discussion was taken up arguing over NCORP and NSPORTS to get any real clarity about the quality of sourcing. It would be appropriate to revisit this in a year or so. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart Esports

AfDs for this article:
Stalwart Esports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A not so famous eSports team. Just routine coverage. No international or regional ESL participation. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. - Hatchens (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Comment: I'd like to see this nomination at least address the sources that led to this article being kept a few months ago? In the absence of that I still default to keep. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alyo, This is a single event case i.e., Being in the news with a single event - "cross-border cooperation" - does not in itself mean that an entity (organization in this case) should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. -Hatchens (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the future you should say that in the AfD nomination; as it is the nom appears to ignore a lot of previous discussion about the article topic. Regardless, if the main reasoning for deletion is WP:CORPDEPTH, then I completely disagree with your interpretation and I don't think that the geopolitical aspect of Stalwarts activities falls under "brief mentions and routine announcements". I'm still a keep. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - my Esports team! I joke, but I think I've been editing here longer than they have been e-sporting. Alyo makes a salient point here; what has changed since February this year? St★lwart111 07:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stalwart111, it shouldn't have been passed in the Feb. Anyway, I will try to dig more into the page editors and it's reviewers history. - Hatchens (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if you disagree with an AFD close, that's a matter for WP:DRV. Otherwise, the relevant guide is WP:RENOM. WP:1E relates to people (not groups), WP:NCORP relates to companies (not sports teams), WP:ROUTINE is about statutory announcements and the like (not announcements by a group that have received significant coverage in reliable sources), and the history of the article isn't really something that is relevant to the subject's notability (but is relevant to WP:BEFORE which includes a check of the talk page which features the COI declaration you were looking for). St★lwart111 00:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Stalwart111, There has been a discussion on ESPORTS-related notability and its inclusion as per WP:NSPORTS. Currently, there is a clear and established lack of consensus to consider "Esports" a sport - here is the link of that discussion. Since, it's not classified as a "SPORTS TEAM" (in Wikipedia)... so we have to gauge this page under WP:NCORP guidelines. And, according to that... the organization simply fails because WP:CORPDEPTH (and rest of the coverages are nothing more or less than WP:ROUTINE). If we scrutinize it further, then you will find the page creator himself/herself is banned (indefinitely) - though I was quite skeptical to add CSD notice under G5 provision so I added AfD tag (2nd nomination). As you have rightly said, I could have gone through WP:DRV... But it's no more relevant because this new nomination has been added after 6 months. Feel free to rectify my interpretation, if it's found to be incorrect. -Hatchens (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • You expressed disagreement with the result of a previous AFD; the correct forum for that disagreement is DRV, not another AFD. It might not be disruptive (as renominating it might have been inside 6 months) but its still the wrong venue. The genesis of the article (and the involvement of banned editors) is irrelevant to the subject's notability. As for notability, I'm not sure why - having decided WP:NSPORTS is the wrong guideline - we should default to WP:NCORP for this unincorporated affiliation of esports participants...? "we have to gauge this page under WP:NCORP guidelines"... why? There are some corporations that the community has decided shouldn't be subject to that guideline. I'm not sure why we're looking for reasons to subject non-corporations to it. Where nothing else fits, we have WP:N and WP:GNG in particular. St★lwart111 08:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we take WP:RS as a basic criteria, there are two sources that shine. First is Indian Express [24] and second one from Vice [25]. Both are about same event (which brings in the question of intellectual independence!) and unfortunately are very borderline to WP:CORPDEPTH. There are bits and pieces which could be considered but as a whole, sort of not getting there. This is very classic when reporters tell what is being told and there is no other efforts for fact check or to enrich the news by more in-depth research. That being said, good possibility that company can become notable in future and recreation should be allowed without prejudices, ideally via AFC. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this isn't a company so why on Earth would we apply WP:CORPDEPTH and set an inexplicably higher bar than WP:GNG? Those two sources aren't written by the same people, or even published on the same continent, and they were published more than a month apart. Where is the question of intellectual independence? Multiple people writing about the same thing is exactly what we mean when we talk about significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. St★lwart111 02:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing Admin: Nomadicghumakkad was called in here to make a vote by Hatchens by pinging him on his talk page while i was trying to give him information about ESL and South Asia. My conversation at Hatchens Talk Page. Also considering that this Article was once subjected to AfD and was stormed by a group who wanted to get it deleted, i'm not accusing anyone but there could be possibility of the same group acting again. I'd request Admins to look into their accounts as well because the information they're trying to push into this AfD is incorrect, i've given a brief information of why ESL isn't active in south asia at hatchen's talk page. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 10:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I know there are few users who are in the hurry to close this discussion. So, I would request to those... please hold patience. Regarding Nomadicghumakkad, he/she is one of the AFC Reviewers whom I trust for withholding Wikipedia guidelines, and let me assure you he/she takes unbiased/uninfluenced call irrespective of what I say. So, it's not a WP:CANVAS - I assure everyone out here. Despite he/she voting for delete, I had a doubt on this entity's classification on Wikipedia - is it WP:GNG or WP:NCORP? To clear it, I religiously went to WP:TEA, raised my concern, and got this particular reply from Usedtobecool. There is still an ambiguity on how to classify an esports team but as per the lede (of this entity) - "it seems to meet the criteria given at NCORP". So, as of now, we will continue to treat it as an "ORGANIZATION" till we get a much better classification. So, my humble request is don't get excited. I'm quite thankful for Abhayesports for declaring WP:COI which I missed seeing in the first place because the tag was put on the entity's talk page rather than on the user page. Now, could you guys just excuse with your interpretations and wait for other's opinions so that a wider consensus can be derived. NOTE: We will use this AfD discussion as one of the case studies to initiate a discussion at Category_talk:Esports_organizations or Talk:Esports or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports and suggest launching a Wikipedia Project Esports to discuss and frame proper guidelines for Esports organizations (Thanks to Gråbergs Gråa Sång for suggesting this). -Hatchens (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can continue to treat it as such, but we are under no obligation to follow your lead. St★lwart111 11:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a legit question if this is canvasing or not and unfortunately there is no straight answer to it. Hatchens asked to look at this AFD and figure if there was a COI problem. They never said go and participate. So, solely basis on past experiences, theoretically, this is not canvassing. But that's theory of course. In practical sense, if someone tags me to look at an AFD for whatsoever reasons, my likelihood of commenting increases. But I felt this discussion could use some more diverse opinions and hence came here. About Eports teams being a company or not - the way I would look at it, if they are making money in any format (even through cash prizes), they should be considered as a company. But that's my view. Feel free to strike my comment if you felt it didn't give a new perspective and came in here only to support the nominator by adding another invaluable keep. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete NCORP applies to organizations of any type whatsoever. There are similar problems for profit making commercial companies as with volunteer organization --basically, they all live by publicity, and will use the press to get it. For all of them, material discussing only routine activities and funding is not enough to show notability. That's the reason for the NCORP restriction--not the desire to reduce coverage, but the need to reduce coi editing. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a corporation or an organisation. It has no constitution or membership guidelines or process for joining. It's not even a traditional sporting club (which, as a fan, you can become a member of). It's a sports team. The fact that their sport isn't considered a traditional sport does not mean that any kind of organised participation should be disingenuously conflated with the constitution of a formal organisation. St★lwart111 11:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    NORG covers any group of more than one person formed together for a purpose, except small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people) and non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. If a group not covered by the exceptions has another specific notability guideline, it can be presumed notable based on that, without meeting NORG (not a direct quote, but also from NORG). When one concedes that esports team are not a traditional sports team and therefore not covered by NSPORTS, and that there is no specific guideline for esports teams, and that it is not among the exceptions listed, then it's simply logical that it is covered by NORG. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's clearly a sports team. That the NSPORTS crowd doesn't want it, or doesn't know what to do with esports yet, does not make that untrue. There have been recent DRV discussions about whether NCORP should apply to corporations ahead of GNG, given the extent to which that guideline seems to have moved away from community sentiment. There's no justification for applying it here except as a tool for setting an artificially higher inclusion threshold, and the arguments above make that plainly clear. St★lwart111 13:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NSPORTS says there is no community consensus to consider esports a sport (sport is something to which the guideline NSPORTS applies; this is the only definition that's useful here). Even if this AFD did agree it's a sport, there is no corresponding list of criteria at NSPORTS. In absence of alternative specific guidelines for any group of more than one person doing something, NORG applies. The purpose of AFD is to apply existing guidelines and policies as they are, not as one thinks they ought to be. The debates are over interpretation, not merit. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Usedtobecool, you know what's the irony - Stalwart111 forcing us to accept this eSports team as per WP:NSPORTS despite we clearly telling him/her... at this moment eSports are not considered to be part of NSPORTS. On the other hand, at an another AfD he/she doesn't want a football club - Luca Soccer Club to be assessed under WP:NFOOTY because he/she thinks WP:GNG is the appropriate guideline and keep the page. I am done explaining and I surrender. I have not seen such poor interpretation of Wiki guidelines on AfD discussions. - Hatchens (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, my argument there is that WP:GNG should apply because WP:GNG is our baseline notability criteria. My argument is the same here. It doesn't matter if that club doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY, because it already passes WP:GNG. And it doesn't matter if this sporting team isn't considered a sporting team or doesn't pass WP:NCORP, because it already passes WP:GNG. It's pretty simply, really. St★lwart111 00:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I was investigating the Stalwart for paranormal activity and happened to eyeball check this out for a possible COI which isn't the case, just a random chance as two people might have the same date of birth. The New indian Express and the Vice are good; but checking out the associated "Stalwart Freestyle" starts to bring in Pakistan based resources such as [26], leading to a solid keep; albeit the article might need a move(rename)/redirect(s). Its an alt to deletion though. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I voted for a keep in previous AfD based on Alyo's sources but DGG's arguments above make sense to me. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are people argues that it should pass WP:NCORP, but there are no consensus on that and are just personal opinions. Until then WP:GNG that matters which it passes already. - The9Man (Talk) 20:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stalwart Esports has never played an international tournament. It is just a small organization that participates in local tournaments. The team also has never won any major local tournament.Aaditya.abh (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page contains only information regarding pubgm and free fire, so this comment should be taken in regard of these games.Aaditya.abh (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aaditya.abh, Hey, i don't think winning any tournament determines notability. But just to answer your question, Stalwart has played all the Pubg Mobile Pro League seasons till date which is a Major PUBG mobile tournament(PP- $200000+) , and has played multiple seasons of Free Fire Indian Championship. Again, even these things don't determine notability on wikipedia. Read WP:GNG. Just helping you out since you're a new esport editor on wikipedia. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 02:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abhayesports I don't believe Pubg mobile pro league is a international tournament. You can say it's a qualifying tournament for international tournament. Secondly, playing any 'major' local tournament, shouldn't be considered note worthy. There are dozens of teams who play various pubgm and free fire tournaments in a year, but I don't think that should make them notable.Aaditya.abh (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aaditya.abh, Oh i see, At the first you say that They haven't played any major tournament hence aren't deemed to be fit on wikipedia later you say playing any major local tournament shouldn't be considered note worthy. You're clearly confused. Also you're actually repeating what i said. Winning or loosing tourneys doesn't make any team notable, They should pass certain parameters on wikipedia to be considered as notable. I'm just assuming good faith here :). Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 02:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abhayesports I don't think you are getting my point. Anyways, I once created a page for S8UL Esports which was deleted because of not passing the notability test. It's afd. The organization is superior in notability to stalwart Esports. The page I created can be still seen HERE. Now if that page was deleted for failing notability, the same arguments can be applied here. Peace ✌️☮️Aaditya.abh (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I believe you are taking this personally because of you having a COI with the topic of the page in question. Aaditya.abh (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aaditya.abh, Hey again, As said i am assuming good faith and just trying to correct your information. Moreover COI is the reason why i haven't made any vote here. But i believe COI can't stop me from defending false information considering that most of the admins might not be well versed with esports and would think that what you've written is correct when it's not. You've posted misleading information above classifying Pro League as a minor event and disregarding FFIC. So i believe it's my duty to raise awareness on the same because a $200k tourney can't be classified as minor. We don't take things personally here, this is a public encyclopaedia and we're all here to contribute. If i wasn't Assuming good faith i'd have dig up that you're doing this just because i commented on your S8UL AfD and disregarded those invalid sources as RS. But i didn't because my sole reason of replying to you was to correct your knowledge on Minor and Major Events in PUBG Mobile. Also just researched another thing, their current PUBG mobile lineup are the former PMPL Champions. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 06:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing break

  • Reply @Swordman97:, I don’t think participation in a certain tournament makes any team notable(as per my understanding of wikipedia’s guidelines), participation in major’s is a notability criteria for liquipedia but wikipedia follows certain guidelines and as per WP:GNG this subject has several WP:RS which meet the guidelines. Moreover, if all the teams who have participated in major’s are notable to have a page on Wikipedia then there are many esport teams out there who should be on WP, moreover can you kindly share the link to the specific guideline about having participation in a major to be notable for WP, Also, just to answer your query, Stalwart has participated in all the 4 seasons of Pubg Mobile Pro league South Asia, which is a major Pubg Mobile tournament, although I don’t believe it matters but still just answering your query. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 00:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Participation in the highest level of a sport is the easiest way to achieve notability, which in this case would be the continental series or global championshipglobal championship. They have not achieved that yet and they are not an especially winning or notable team so they don't need an article. Swordman97 talk to me 04:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPORTSCRIT is what I was referencing. In any case I agree with Nomad with their view of the article. The sources are too trivial. Swordman97 talk to me 04:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pbrks: The sources you mentioned latter are reliable and contribute to page's notability.
But as you can see on the page, some of the information provided is original research and no sources are provided as to that. In short, lack of sources for information on the page. Gyan.Know (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gyan.Know: This isn't how WP:AfD works. In general, if reliable, secondary, independent sources with significant coverage of the topic exist, then the article satisfies WP:GNG. An article may contain original research or some poor sources, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. — Pbrks (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It seems to me that the crux of this debate is whether NCORP applies to this esports team or not, and for this I feel we should ignore the letter of the policies, as clearly they are insufficient for this edge case and instead consider the intent, which is as a line of defence against the proliferation of corporate spam. Per this SPI, this article was created by a sockmaster pushing very hard for articles about the matter and other associated individuals which suggests a COI; as such, I feel it is appropriate to consider this under NCORP which means delete is the appropriate decision. I was actually expecting this line of argument to lead to a "Keep" !vote when I started down it, but I guess I was wrong BilledMammal (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BilledMammal, I'd like to understand your rationale here... are you saying that because the creator might have a COI (which you agree is suggested, but not confirmed) we should apply an irrelevant - but stricter - guideline to ensure it is deleted to protect the project from said suggested COI? St★lwart111 00:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In a way. It is unclear whether the WP:NCORP applies; there are arguments for and against. I probably lean towards the "for" argument, as these teams are for-profit entities that relying on popularity, at least in part, for their revenue.
However, I decided that the situation was sufficiently nebulous that we would be better off considering the spirit of WP:NCORP, not the word, and to do this I thought we should look into the background of the article's creators; did they create it "under a cloud", is it reasonable to expect a COI or UPE to exist. To my surprise, it turned out that such a cloud existed, and thus it seems in line with the spirit of NCORP to apply it, and as there seems to be a consensus that the article should be deleted if NCORP applies, the only reasonable result, in my opinion, is delete. BilledMammal (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the author having a COI wouldn't be a reason for deletion in the first place, so applying an inapplicable guideline just to produce that result doesn't seem appropriate. The author's COI, or potential COI, isn't even something WP:NCORP considers, so it seems particularly bloody-minded to apply that guideline as some kind of strawman. The arguments in favour of deletion want to disingenuously apply WP:NCORP for the same reason; the subject doesn't pass that guideline so if they can argue that guideline should apply, they can have it deleted. "if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid". This fish should not be expected to climb that tree. St★lwart111 00:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources look fine to me, and I don't think any higher standard above WP:GNG should be applied here. Whether the creator of the page was or was not a spammer or did or did not have a conflict of interest is irrelevant; what matters is whether it meets the applicable policies and guidelines, and in my opinion, it does. Mlb96 (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the subject passes our WP:GNG. The first AFD, also found that GNG is met. Lightburst (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with DGG that news coverage of routine doings of commercial organizations is insufficient for notability and that WP:NCORP applies. Besides, due to the problem of paid news in India, the Indian new sources cited in the article cannot be relied upon. Sandstein 20:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who is going to tell Wikipedia:WikiProject India that most of their articles will need to be deleted? These contributions are getting insane, and insanely bad faith. St★lwart111 02:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I have argued above, WP:NCORP applies, and the topic fails it.
    Even WP:GNG is not met. WP:GNG is a criterion for a presumption that if these sources exist, it must be a topic worth knowing about (encyclopedic knowledge), and there must be more, enough to support a detailed and balanced article. The links that have been presented here for the purpose do not inspire confidence wrto. either. It was interesting and newsworthy when people from rival nations cooperated and it brought temporary media attention; that is not enough for notability which is more permanent. We could as well use the same references and write 2020 cooperation between Indian and Pakistani gamers to participate in the PUBG Mobile Pro League South Asia after PUBG was banned in India, except it's not a notable event under the same sources. How can the same sources make an event non-notable and a group of people notable? They don't. If this is not an organisation, it's a group of people involved in an event. That event is not notable and regardless, the group fails WP:BIO1E. The only escape is to make this group a sports team which is against community consensus. Even if it weren't, it fails any reasonable sporting guideline we might have come up with, as the coverage is about a single event, the filling of roster (not playing) for a competition that is not played at the highest level.
    Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree that WP:NCORP applies here. NCORP is broader than WP:NSPORT when it comes to sports teams, which are "organizations" -- NSPORT would be an "escape route" from NCORP application by way of specificity, but since esports are not categorized as sports for the purposes of NSPORT, this article can't escape NCORP. Subject fails NCORP. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, amid all of that hand-wringing, confusion, disagreement, escapism, and guideline boundary-setting, we still have WP:GNG, right? Phew. St★lwart111 02:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't actually, because whenever NCORP is applicable it has priority application over GNG (it overrides GNG). NCORP is famous for this. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stalwart111, your sarcastic tone has been duly noted. -Hatchens (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanteloop: It isn't complicated, but it has a certain logic that needs to be followed. It isn't about a wider discussion, just about logic:
  1. NSPORT deals only with things commonly held to be sport, and not with things only sometimes referred to as a sport or things that share some common elements with sport
  2. The community does not hold that esports are sport (there is a lack of consensus on the issue of whether they are or aren't, which has been noted down)
  3. Therefore: NSPORT doesn't apply to esports -- so what does?
  4. Regardless of differences between esports and sport, esports teams, like sports teams, are organizations
  5. NCORP applies to organizations in general (had NSPORT not existed, the applicable guideline for sports teams would have been NCORP)
  6. therefore: it is NCORP that applies to esport teams
  7. this esports team as a subject of encyclopedic coverage doesn't pass NCORP (for obvious reasons)
  8. when NCORP is the controlling norm and subject doesn't pass NCORP, said subject is non-notable, because there is no other way notability can be established or presumed for it (such as GNG, because NCORP, within it's area of application, is applied not in tandem with GNG, but instead of GNG)
  9. therefore: the subject is non-notable
  10. and ultimately: this article (being that it deals with a non-notable subject) should be deleted — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Meets WP:GNG" has one step: "1. Subject meets WP:GNG." Besides which, the WP:NTEAM section of WP:NSPORTS makes it quite clear that NSPORTS doesn't have criteria for teams anyway, and says the fall-back for sports teams and clubs is WP:GNG, not WP:NCORP: "This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline.". Your novel 10-step interpretation isn't supported by that guideline at all. St★lwart111 09:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it's a useful summary of the argument, but I think the situation is genuinely quite murky. WP:NCORP is quite clear that sports teams are not covered: "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams." However, whether esports teams are "sports teams" is the question at issue here! If they aren't sports teams, then they are clearly a "group of people organized together for a purpose" and so are covered by WP:NCORP. If they are sports teams, then they are specifically exempted from WP:NCORP and covered by WP:NSPORTS (which as you point out just defers directly to WP:GNG for sports teams). So Alalch Emis's point (4) is incorrectly stated, and in fact the argument for which notability guideline to apply hinges on whether esports teams are sports teams. Suriname0 (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, we should probably just reflect what reliable sources say about esports I guess: [30], [31], [32]. St★lwart111 04:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Federated States of Micronesia at the 2008 Summer Olympics

Federated States of Micronesia at the 2008 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just completely worthless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romonger (talk • contribs) 13:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - nominator offers no valid reasoning for deletion and this is not a close call in terms of notability. Nations competing at the Olympics are presumed notable per WP:NOLYMPICS. As a GA, the article is pretty fleshed out in terms of coverage and backed up by solid references. Aranya (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The result was no consensus. A number of editors have provided more sources. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green Meadow, Delaware

Green Meadow, Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, does the amount of houses and/or population matter? Because there are at least 80 homes (and a bunch more if you include the bordering neighborhood, which Google Maps considers part). And, if Joe Biden's house, which is located down the street from it, was also considered part, there would be 100s of houses included in this development. I'm leaning towards Keep because three sources (this from The News Journal, this from Journal–Every Evening, and this from The Journal–Every Evening) appear significant enough for me. I might expand this article soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the bordering neighborhood appears to be the just-as-generic and non-notable Shipley Heights, Delaware or Lynnfield, Delaware. Reywas92Talk 01:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've significantly expanded the article in this edit, adding nine references. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. It's not notable to just paste in the text of advertisements and pretend it's encyclopedic material. Nor it is notable encylopedic content to copy a testimony about one time the creek got high. Just fluff about a run-of-the-mill development. Reywas92Talk 17:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The community was founded in 1954, and consisted of 47 "ranch-type houses," air conditioned by York Refrigeration & Condition" Sheesh, talk about pointless ref-bomb type junk details. Sure, back in 1954 this ad thought that relevant to inform potential homebuyers, but that's not independent coverage for notability, due weight, or encyclopedic relevance. Do we need to include from this advertorial that the washer and dryer came from Kelvinator and the surfaces are Formica? Reywas92Talk 18:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And since the News-Journal is the local Wilmington newspaper, there's almost no way that a story about a local neighborhood is enough to make that place notable; it ordinarily would take substantial coverage from outside the area. Mangoe (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) is failed proposal. Wikipedia:AUD is the guideline. Or is the suggestion that this "local neighborhood" be redirected to Wilmington? Djflem (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having compared the two, I do not see how this place passes either standard. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to pass the failed proposal (which was essentially being suggested above). Extensive regional sources been provided provided, as per the guideline. Djflem (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that it does. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it does meet GNG with SIGCOV from the Journal–Every Evening (1, 2), The Morning News (1), and The News Journal (1). Some other coverage includes this, this, this, and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These epitomize local coverage of a suburban development. Look, the Morning News, and Evening Journal, and the News-Journal are all the same newspaper, published by the same company on the same presses at least as far back as I can remember in the 1970s. It's just the main Wilmington paper, and this is typical of local coverage in a metropolitan area. It doesn't satisfy GNG because it is completely routine. Mangoe (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're not the same. The Journal–Every Evening (formed by a merger of The Evening Journal and Every Evening) merged with The Morning News in the '60s or '70s, becoming The News Journal. Until then they were separate papers. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. When I lived in the area in the mid 1970s, the Morning News and Evening Journal were published as separate editions, in the same typeface and all, by the same publisher. Acto our own article, the "merger" into a single edition wasn't accomplished until it was bought up by Gannett in 1989, but even before that they were simply morning and evening editions from the same publisher. In any case, the point remains: this is as local as coverage gets, and is typical of said coverage of city suburbs. Mangoe (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I may be incorrect, but was it the same in the 1950s? The coverage I call significant, besides the 1993 article by The News Journal, was published between 1954 and 1958. Also, per Djflem, if the coverage is local it doesn't matter—its still SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the inclusion of lots of reliable third-party sources that demonstrate notability. There has been a quite significant expansion since nomination (compare before and after). There seems to be a fierce edit war on the article between participants in this AfD (oscillating between a long version and a short version), but even the short version easily clears GNG. jp×g 22:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a tiny housing development with less than 70 homes, no notability, no form of self governance. No reason it should be here. Superman7515 (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. Incorrect—there are between 80 and 120 homes in the development. 2. Incorrect—I have presented extensive regional sources, establishing notability IMO. 3. Correct, but it doesn't matter whether or not it governs itself. 4. Incorrect—If a topic meets GNG it should be here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aishwarya Raj Bhakuni

Aishwarya Raj Bhakuni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

  • Strong Delete: Not enough coverage for WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Apart from IWMBuzz and TellyChakkar (both advertising and marketing agencies) and a Brand Post on Hindustan Times couldn’t find much. Just a passing mention in a Times of India article. defcon5 (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I recreated the page of Aishwarya Raj Bhakuni as there are enough authentic sources available which have sole coverage of the actress for her role in the recent movie of YRF Films 'Samrat Prithviraj' You can simply google and see a number of results from leading media houses of India such as Times of India, Ahmedabad Mirror, Dainik Bhaskar and so on. The subject in the article has now commanded sufficient popularity as evident from the media coverage. The recently created page has been moved to draftspace. Please restore it. Dumbo shaan (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence of playing significant roles to meet WP:NACTOR (Eg. hardly stands out among tens of other actors who appeared in Tenali Rama (TV series)). Coverage is not sufficient to pass GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I recreated the page of Aishwarya Raj Bhakuni as there are enough authentic sources available which have sole coverage of the actress for her role in the recent movie of YRF Films 'Samrat Prithviraj' You can simply google and see a number of results from leading media houses of India such as Times of India, Ahmedabad Mirror, Dainik Bhaskar and so on. The subject in the article has now commanded sufficient popularity as evident from the media coverage. The recently created page has been moved to draftspace. Please restore it. Dumbo shaan (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recreated the page of Aishwarya Raj Bhakuni as there are enough authentic sources available which have sole coverage of the actress for her role in the recent movie of YRF Films 'Samrat Prithviraj' You can simply google and see a number of results from leading media houses of India such as Times of India, Ahmedabad Mirror, Dainik Bhaskar and so on. The subject in the article has now commanded sufficient popularity as evident from the media coverage. The recently created page has been moved to draftspace. Please restore it. Dumbo shaan (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Xenia motif. Sandstein 11:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xenia epigram

Xenia epigram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE to Xenia motif. Martial's Xenia are the source of the epigrams, but I agree that they don't need a separate article. --Macrakis (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE to Xenia motif.4meter4 (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universidade da luta

Universidade da luta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q-Bus card list

Q-Bus card list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd separated it from the parent page in question as IMHO the list was overly long and distracting; deleting this page would therefore be an overall removal of information that existed prior to the page's creation, which isn't to say it shouldn't be done but that some caution should be exercised if that wasn't the intended result. The alternative is to re-merge it back into the Q-Bus page but that would simply take us back to where we started (unless the list can be collapsed; I don't know enough about the finer points of Wiki code to know if that's possible nor how it would be accomplished).
I also dunno if I'm supposed to write "disagree" or "oppose" or something like that in a fancy colour!
--Vometia (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further edit: I'd also remark that "zero value" is rather PoV. Old systems, their research and restoration are seeing a lot of popularity so the information is valuable to those people and its removal therefore unhelpful: what is Wikipedia's value if not to people who are searching for that information? --Vometia (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at other legacy (or even current) bus systems, e.g. VME, ATA, SBUS, UNIBUS, I do not see any other lists of cards. There is a perfectly good and accessible list of Q-BUS cards in the single reference on the article Digital Microcomputer Products Handbook 1985. I don't see why that guide needs to be replicated as a Wikipedia article. Whether the list is here or back in the original article doesn't get around the fact it is way more detail than is necessary. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on one's definition of "necessary"; trouble is, it's a rather subjective measure. tbh I don't have a lot invested either way and as mentioned previously, the article's creation was specifically to remove clutter from the parent. But I tend to fall on the side of being loath to nuke potentially useful information. I guess I disagree with the deletionist stance as the dividing line between useful/useless is an absolute judgement based on an arbitrary cut-off point of the particular deletionist's own devising. Anyway, that's probably a discussion for elsewhere (and another one I'm not all that invested in), my point is that I don't see what is gained by deleting it but I see potential problems with doing so. --Vometia (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - as above. Disagree with rationale to delete; alternative is to re-merge back into parent article but I don't favour that as a solution as I split this overly-long section to shorten article to reasonable length. --Vometia (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I moved it from the main article because I figured it was clutter (i.e. unduly verbose compared to rest of article, not irrelevant). While I don't really see what is gained by re-merging it I have no especially strong objection and it would be preferable to simply deleting it. --Vometia (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to add: I would re-merge it back myself if I could figure out how to get mw-collapsed to work. Which I can't, so if anybody wants to clue me in... --Vometia (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

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

Dongbu District, Zhongshan

Dongbu District, Zhongshan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. DreamerBlue (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 23:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Standard International School of Dhaka

American Standard International School of Dhaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary and unreliable source. No notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (schools) guideline. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!【Click to Discuss】 14:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!【Click to Discuss】 14:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two of the cited sources are not fully described enough to be verifiable. From the sound of them, if they have been published at all, they were published by the school. The remainder are directory listings or home pages of organizations mentioned in the article which don't mention the school. Searches of the usual types found no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 18:57, 7 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 merge to Nihonjin gakkō. Daniel (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese School Dhaka

Japanese School Dhaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Japanese School Dhaka (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
ダッカ日本人学校 (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary and unreliable source. No notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (schools) guideline. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!【Click to Discuss】 14:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Schools for children of the rich (in this case, expatriate and diplomatic families) tend to be better documented than other schools. Did you search in Japanese? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are two sources in Japanese, courtesy of CiNii (Japanese academic database), listed with "ダッカ日本人学校" in the title:
  • I have not seen any evidence that the first has any connection to the school. The second is a report of a person from a school in Japan (豊橋市立福岡小学校) who worked in the Dhaka Japanese School.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither source provides significant coverage of the school. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Not convinced that sources are likely to exist. The fact that the Japanese wiki is lacking an article is telling. Additionally, we need to uphold the RFC at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that schools must show significant coverage in independent refs in order to be kept.4meter4 (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @4meter4: Do you read Japanese? Have you read the sources? I can't see how neither source has Wikipedia:Significant coverage (""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.") since the name of the school is in the title of each source, that means the school is the main topic, which means by definition the source must provide significant coverage. Working in a Japanese school can be freely read online, and without a doubt gives SIGCOV. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has received significant coverage in Japanese sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kudos to WhisperToMe for finding the three sources in Japanese. The 1979 source says when it was established, who the first teacher was, the initial number of students, what the facilities and teaching supplies were like, when the second teacher arrived, etc. It is significant coverage. The 2005 source and the 2014 source are offline, so I don't believe any of us have read them. WhisperToMe's argument that from their titles and length they are likely to contain significant coverage is persuasive. However, 4meter4 makes the point that WP:GNG and WP:ORG call for independent sources to establish notability. The 1979 source is written by the school's first teacher. The 2005 source, according to WhisperToMe, is written by former employees. And one of the authors of the 2014 source, Toyomichi Maruta, is the principal of the school (or was as of 2013).[36][37] So none of the sources is truly arms length. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nihonjin gakkō as an alternative to deletion. There isn't much content to merge, but that article's list of schools is a good place to record its name in Japanese, year it was established, and what sources are available. Although the resulting redirect would lead to little information specific to this campus, it would give readers useful information about this specialized type of school that they otherwise might not find. I can't recommend keep because of the absence of independent sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford International School, Dhaka

Oxford International School, Dhaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!【Click to Discuss】 14:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 and merge with BAF Saheen College Hockey Field Seddon talk 01:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BAF Shaheen College Dhaka

BAF Shaheen College Dhaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (schools) guideline. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!【Click to Discuss】 14:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!【Click to Discuss】 14:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 22 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, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K.P. Ramaiah

K.P. Ramaiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is page for a politician which was not elected. And also, I did not find enough coverage for WP:GNG Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - again, we shouldn't judge notability of politicians solely on electoral record. KPR appears to have been a prominent public figure, notably his entry into party politics became national news in itself. --Soman (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Muijul Hoque Azad

Md. Muijul Hoque Azad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 14:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 14:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 14:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Gopher (protocol)#Server software. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 14:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PyGopherd

PyGopherd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to gopher (protocol) § Server software. This article regularly gets up to 5 views a day, perhaps we should redirect it to the main Gopher article for user convenience. Anton.bersh (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Tisch

Christoph Tisch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 15:59, 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 merge. Geschichte (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drop B tuning

Drop B tuning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh of Austrasia

Hugh of Austrasia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The French article includes as references two editions of a book on the ancestors of Charlemagne. I have added both to the English article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's nice to finally have a source for the article. EytanMelech (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anmol Joon

Anmol Joon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the references looks like press release with sponsor tag. Fails WP:GNG. Trakinwiki (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nomination. JiggyzizTalk✍️ 12:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check it now Sir, please check article now, had removed article which were looks paid/disclaimered. Bihariboy Rahul (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article should be deleted and page should be protected so they can't make again in main space this article is have promotional purposes only. They have misleading information of entrepreneurship and sport person both different they misusing reference of other person this not Wikipedia reliable content. toiwriter (talk)
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that additional sources are not sufficient evidence of notability. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Du Secondary School

Nguyễn Du Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Eastmain for the source finding, however still when I searched up "Nguyễn Du Secondary School 139 Nguyen Du Street" and similar search terms, I get sites that are basically mirrors of this article, or sites that copy the information of this article. I thought I found another name for it called "Nguyễn Du Gifted High School" but from what I found searching that up, they seem different. From the news search, I only found minor mentions such as this, I think same applies with the sources you gave. If more sources are found that give more than a small mention, then I think that this article might be notable. Perhaps I am just bad at source finding. Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article has been sourced, providing evidence of notability. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edenridge, Delaware

Edenridge, Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaffarabadmachli

Muzaffarabadmachli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

References

  1. ^ Malkani, M. S. (2019). "Recently discovered basilosaurid, baluchithere rhinoceros, horses, sea cow, proboscidean, eucrocodile, pterosaurs, plesiosaur, fishes, invertebrates and wood fossils, tracks and trackways of dinosaurs from Pakistan; comparison of recognized four titanosaur taxa of Indo-Pakistan with Madagascar". Open Journal of Geology. 9 (12): 919–955.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. The subject has been mentioned in reliable sources to some degree. However, upon analysis of the sources presented, consensus here determined that the organization itself lacks significant, in-depth coverage to meet the threshold of notability in accordance with WP:NORG. ✗plicit 13:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Human Rights

Hindu Human Rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NORG is not met. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hindu Human Rights is the oldest standing Human Rights organisation for Hindus in the UK and one of the first outside India in the world. It is a notable organisation and it should not be deleted. It is also problematic in the context of a competing, far newer group from the USA who are aggressively using a very similar name and have gone so far as to claim the knowledge panel at google with their own account. This is a maliciously motivated attempt to silence Hindu Human Rights. Jnanashuddhi (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears unwarranted to target this page for deletion. It doesn't seem to be violating any clauses and WP:NORG is certainly met as compared with other organisations on wiki since HHR is a distinct and unique organization with significant number of anti-Hinduphobia events held under their guidance and a significant social media presence. I would raise a point towards probable malicious targeting of the page here since equally or even lesser known organizations seem to have wiki pages without any deletion discussions on them. e.g. Labour Muslim Network, Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council, Council on Islamic Education, Muslim Student Union of the University of California, Irvine, etc. The last one, for example, is a university student organisation. It's very unnerving to see that there is no deletion discussion for a wiki page of a small college student organisation but is there for an international human rights organisation. I'd suggest the wiki community should do much more against such biased discussions which waste the time of contributors. Toshi2k2 (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notwithstanding your inability to read my comment in its entirety, I mention ..as compared with other organisations on wiki... Additionally, WP:WHATABOUTX mentions - While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.... The article appears to consist of independent, reliable citations (BBC News, Times of India, The Hindu) to news reports/articles which point to some of the HHR activities and demonstrations which should be apt (alongwith the comparative argument) for the article to exist. Despite this, even if you continue to argue using the notability clause, the article seems to be still covered under WP:FAILORG and WP:NONPROFIT. A better use of space and time would be improving the article and making it more comprehensive. e.g. adding details regarding founding, membership, structure, etc. Toshi2k2 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
BBC News Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Articles detail Hindu Human Rights (HHR) and quotes their petition and responses.
Times of India Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY HHR mentioned in a prominent way.
The Hindu Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Article is directly related with HHR.
Total qualifying sources 3

WP:NORG is met. Toshi2k2 (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Hindu article is about Meghnad Desai's reaction to some campaign on M. F. Hussain that the organization had started.
  • The TOI article has two paragraphs. In the second of them, it notes that our subject has planned a protest against Hussain.
  • This is literally the reason for which a NYT source was deemed to not make the cut in the boilerplate source-analysis-table provided at NCORP.
  • The BBC article on Tina Turner devotes two lines to the organization. (1) The organization has planned to protest her appearance in her film and (2) that they have circulated a petition.
  • Once again, the coverage is not significant.
  • The BBC article on Harrods quotes HHR executives on some controversy over a store selling objectionable clothing.
NOTNEWS does not apply because the coverage was not one-off but attracted attention from scholarly sources. The coverage is significant enough. Instead of using CTRL+F, you need to read the actual sources that have been provided. Otinflewer (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Toshi2k2 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It appears to be borderline, though the reliability of The Times of India still remains marginal per WP:TOI. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 13:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Nakshathra

Lakshmi Nakshathra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sreeram DilakOm symbol.svg 09:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sreeram DilakOm symbol.svg 09:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sreeram DilakOm symbol.svg 09:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Sreeram DilakOm symbol.svg 09:48, 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) 17:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I also have concerns about the sources. Lacks secondary sources. I wouldn’t use Times of India for establishing notability See more at WP:TOI.defcon5 (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a TV hosts subject meets WP:ENT. Criterion #1 is not about having significant sources. It states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (BTW, source #1 from Youtube is dead, I tried to remove it, but it doesn't appear in the source code. Can someone tell me how this is inserted in my talk page? appears to be some kind of infobox module.) Peter303x (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agnihothri Sharath (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be ample sourcing provided by the anonymous editor above. I disagree with the sweeping statement that all of them fail GNG, what makes them non independent? They look okay to me. NemesisAT (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Olurotimi Badero

Olurotimi Badero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Renvoy (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ, I’d say whilst I have my reservations as per the creation, creator and history of this article, a weak keep !vote is definitely apt. The ref bombing is quite tiring though but yes, in all, it’s mainspace worthy. Celestina007 (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaditya Budhathoki

Aaditya Budhathoki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh KC

Santosh KC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The RS has "Santosh KC is a Nepalese folk singer who won the Radio Kantipur National Music Award for Best Male Folk Singer in 2075 BS for his song "Daai Ki Saali".[1] He produces Teej songs every year which receive millions of views on youtube.[2]" That is enough for a stub, except these UPE articles don't ever stop there. This is usually what happens after these articles get through AFC/AFD. It's just not worth it; readers who'd be looking for this topic will already know all we can say currently.

References

  1. ^ http://www.kmg.com.np/national-music-awards-2075
  2. ^ https://kathmandupost.com/art-culture/2020/08/21/how-teej-songs-have-evolved-and-what-they-mean-for-women

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radio Kantipur National Music Award is an award given by an FM station. The source is primary. We don't have an article for the award. I don't want to say it's never enough because I am wary of the precedent. Music Awards are usually given out by FM stations; and at least some of them used to mean something; may still do. But there are far too many awards, none seem to be regular, and it's hard to say whether any of them has absolute integrity/independence. See, for example, this. So, the award, in my opinion, is not enough for WP:NMUSIC but I think it is enough for WP:ANYBIO especially with an RS saying, in a piece about Teej music, that this is one of the artists who produces popular Teej music annually. Not a slam dunk but as a way of extending significant AGF and erring on the side of inclusion. Such flexibility is, of course, not warranted when UPE and socking is involved, as it is here. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to clarify that I am not getting paid to write this article. I am doing this as a part of my project for my journalism class. Had I get paid or if I get paid for writing an article I would have no problem mentioning them. I have made a list of 10 random people from the "Nepali Lok Dohori" sector, they are well known in Nepal, however, have no internet presence whatsoever. I intend to write this article and present them along with my project.Milan260 (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems the main author Milan260 has not updated the article since a month. So,I am changing my vote to Delete because the likelyhood of improvement in future is thin.nirmal (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Milan260, if you are not paid, where did you get the information in the early life section of the article and his exact birthdate? There's also this. I don't know how anybody's journalism could be helped by writing crap supported by crap (what kind of journalists know whole life stories of barely notable people but don't know what sources are reliable?). Why didn't and don't you go to a library and find usable sources for your articles? Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 09:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yarranlea Primary School

Yarranlea Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. lovkal (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 09:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Kossow

Herman Kossow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Bloomington MN appears to be large enough that a substantive and well-sourced article about a mayor could potentially be kept, it is not large or important enough that its mayors would simply be presumed notable just because you write and primary source a short blurb that barely goes any further than "he was a mayor who existed". The notability test for mayors is not passed simply by writing a few stray tidbits of biographical trivia; it is passed by writing and reliably sourcing (meaning media coverage, not the city's own self-published website about itself and not user-generated family genealogy sites) a substantive article about his political impact: specific things he accomplished, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Park Street District (Columbus, Ohio)

Park Street District (Columbus, Ohio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as initial "nominator". I have not found any evidence that this is a real district; none of the sources support it, and I can't find any others. Nor is it a term among local residents. ɱ (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page was created by User:Jimison5, which is a WP:SPA, see Special:Contributions/Jimison.5, my guess is that they were an experienced editor who was paid to create this article as they created a draft of article in a sandbox and then created the article. Searching Newspapers.com for '"Park Street District" Columbus' in Ohio yields 6 hits. Two are from 2010 about a Park Street Festival - as notability is not inherited, these two articles do not support notability for this article. (I'm not so sure a Park Street Festival article would be notable, see WP:PRODUCTREV). One article has a passing reference to a house, the other three are scan errors. Searching GBooks yields some 1899 school-related hits about the Park Street District and some 1908 public works. The other GBooks hits don't apply. I found no WP:RS sources that are solely about this area. WP:GNG is not met. There is no legal recognition of the subject, nor is there any non-trivial coverage, thus #1 and #2 of WP:GEOLAND are not met. 18:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Flying Luttenbachers. ✗plicit 13:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"...The Truth Is a Fucking Lie..."

"...The Truth Is a Fucking Lie..." (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Album does not meet notability guidelines. I am not able to find any news coverage on it at all. Chrisfilip (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Chrisfilip (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chrisfilip (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2 citations are not considered significant and furthermore there is no evidence of it charting or meeting WP:NALBUMS. I have also searched the Billboard historical charts.Chrisfilip (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Busse

Tim Busse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested with the rationale "Mayor of a city with a population of over 85,000 people. Currently of importance to the city.".

Non-notable mayor of a small city. Fails WP:NPOL; newspapers.com has some local news coverage, but nothing that really provides WP:SIGCOV beyond WP:LOCAL, so also fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Bloomington MN appears to be large enough that a substantive and well-sourced article about a mayor could potentially be kept, it is not large or important enough that its mayors would simply be presumed notable just because you write and primary source a short blurb that barely goes any further than "he was a mayor who existed". The notability test for mayors is not passed simply by writing a few stray tidbits of biographical trivia; it is passed by writing and reliably sourcing (meaning media coverage, not the city's own self-published website about itself) a substantive article about his political impact: specific things he accomplished, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Houle

Coral Houle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested with the rationale "Former Mayor of City with a population of 85,000. Of historical significance to the area.".

Non-notable mayor of a small city. Fails WP:NPOL; newspapers.com has some local news coverage, but nothing that really provides WP:SIGCOV beyond WP:LOCAL, so also fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Bloomington MN appears to be large enough that a substantive and well-sourced article about a mayor could potentially be kept, it is not large or important enough that its mayors would simply be presumed notable just because you write and primary source a short blurb that barely goes any further than "she was a mayor who existed". The notability test for mayors is not passed simply by writing a few stray tidbits of biographical trivia; it is passed by writing and reliably sourcing (meaning media coverage, not the city's own self-published website about itself) a substantive article about her political impact: specific things she accomplished, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects she had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Laughinghouse

Kurt Laughinghouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Bloomington MN appears to be large enough that a substantive and well-sourced article about a mayor could potentially be kept, it is not large or important enough that its mayors would simply be presumed notable just because you write and primary source a short blurb that barely goes any further than "he was a mayor who existed". The notability test for mayors is not passed simply by writing a few stray tidbits of biographical trivia; it is passed by writing and reliably sourcing (meaning media coverage, not the city's own self-published website about itself) a substantive article about his political impact: specific things he accomplished, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Thomasberg

John A. Thomasberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested.

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Bloomington MN appears to be large enough that a substantive and well-sourced article about a mayor could potentially be kept, it is not large or important enough that its mayors would simply be presumed notable just because you write and primary source a short blurb that barely goes any further than "he was a mayor who existed". The notability test for mayors is not passed simply by writing a few stray tidbits of biographical trivia; it is passed by writing and reliably sourcing (meaning media coverage, not the city's own self-published website about itself) a substantive article about his political impact: specific things he accomplished, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donald R. Hasselberg

Donald R. Hasselberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested.

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Bloomington MN appears to be large enough that a substantive and well-sourced article about a mayor could potentially be kept, it is not large or important enough that its mayors would simply be presumed notable just because you write and primary source a short blurb that barely goes any further than "he was a mayor who existed". The notability test for mayors is not passed simply by writing a few stray tidbits of biographical trivia; it is passed by writing and reliably sourcing (meaning media coverage, not the city's own self-published website about itself) a substantive article about his political impact: specific things he accomplished, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mamiyara Marumagala

Mamiyara Marumagala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. Not convinced salting is necessary here. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James M. King (politician)

James M. King (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested.

Non-notable mayor of a small city. Fails WP:NPOL; newspapers.com has some local news coverage, but nothing that really provides WP:SIGCOV beyond WP:LOCAL, so also fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Bloomington MN appears to be large enough that a substantive and well-sourced article about a mayor could potentially be kept, it is not large or important enough that its mayors would simply be presumed notable just because you write and primary source a short blurb that barely goes any further than "he was a mayor who existed". The notability test for mayors is not passed simply by writing a few stray tidbits of biographical trivia; it is passed by writing and reliably sourcing (meaning media coverage, not the city's own self-published website about itself) a substantive article about his political impact: specific things he accomplished, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bloomington in 1970 had a population of 84, 000; the level at which we presume notability for a mayor is somewhere between 50,0000 and 100,000 . DGG ( talk )
The size-of-the-city test for mayors was deprecated years and years ago, and is no longer relevant to establishing the notability of a mayor at all. There's no longer any presumption of notability granted to mayors of any size of city in the absence of meaningful and reliably sourced substance about the significance of their mayoralty. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loffice

AfDs for this article:
Loffice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem notable GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Tagged for multiple issues (orphan, not neutral sources) since 2012. I am not satisfied with the sourcing either: the first is more about co-working in Hungary than Loffice itself (they have a mention in it of course, but still), the second is the homepage of the organization, and it doesn't even have a "sajtó" (press) link on it, the third is a blog, the fourth one is an invitation to some club, and the fifth one is a blog again, and it is about a conference. I did not find much reliable sources during a google search either, the results were mainly databases and trivial mentions. COI also applies, as this was the creator's only edit before he vanished into thin air. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finney's HIT Squad

AfDs for this article:
Finney's HIT Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Cartee

AfDs for this article:
Cameron Cartee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Renominating because in the last (non-admin closed) AfD, the only keep argument was that Cartee met criterion #10 of WP:MUSICBIO. This policy affirms that a musician may be notable if he has performed music for a work of media that is notable. This doesn't hold up because the article doesn't say Cartee performs music at all. Mottezen (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I did not alert the author of this discussion because I suspect they are connected to all the previous AfD's !keep voters. Mottezen (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It's a bit hard to say that WP:MUSICBIO applies to music engineers (because it does not explicitly mention them). This fellow appears to have a solid background and industry appreciation as an engineer. References are better than a lot of other articles I have seen for music engineers. Meets WP:BASIC --Whiteguru (talk) 20:19, 22 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) 05:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that the correct guideline (WP:PRODUCER) has been identified, I'm relisting to see if anyone wants to make a case under that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 19:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Example of an audio engineer.
  • Delete What is an audio engineer? It's not a person with an engineering degree. It's someone who is hired to work in a studio "engineering" a recording. I have done some minor recording engineering, so I know what it is: sitting behind a mixing board and computer adjusting levels, equalization and mixing of the tracks. They might also add effects like reverb to tracks. they are essentially equipment operators who adjust the amplitude and frequency characteristics of the parts of a recording. It's a run of the mill job. Audio "engineering" not the kind of "engineering" we might look at for a engineering professor who is on the tenure-track at a university. Even those accredited engineers, of which there are hundreds of thousands, are not typically notable under WP:NPROF, as we have high standard there. For this non-accredited recording engineer, I would expect that they would need to have some large accomplishments to meet GNG. There would have to be good coverage, or significant awards, and there seems to be very little of those here. the fact that they worked on adjusting levels for a famous musician's recording just does not cut it, unless good pubs have written about that work. In short, this is just a guy doing his job, who has attracted a small amount of low-quality coverage. There is nothing particularly notable about his accomplishments, and this is attested to by the lack of coverage in reliable sources. --- Possibly ☎ 22:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why you have brought up NPROF, nobody in this discussion has suggested that audio engineers are a discipline of chartered engineers. I have worked in the industry too, so I know perfectly well that they are not. It is, however, recognised that the engineer can contribute significantly to the creative content of a recording and can become very notable for it. That's how come we have category:audio engineers and why PRODUCER is the relevant guideline here. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not making an argument either way for this particular engineer. SpinningSpark 13:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is no argument that can be made to !keep this article based of WP:PRODUCER. The list of artists that the article claims this person worked with is total bullshit. We can see here that he appears in the credits of a single song of a mixtape by DJ Esco that includes songs originally created by the artists listed in the lede of the article. That seems to be where this list comes from. None of the other credits can be verified, as this guy isn't even listed in the AllMusic database. Mottezen (talk) 05:31, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Combat Sports

Arizona Combat Sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Very clear consensus to keep and there doesn't appear to be a highly legitimate reason to delete. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of preserved British Rail diesel locomotives

List of preserved British Rail diesel locomotives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I think; I have no particularly strong feelings on whether the list should exist, but I don't think current lack of references is an adequate reason for deletion. We should delete if references could not conceivably be found. Preserved railways tend to attract a bit of press interest, at least locally, and it should be possible to verify the existence of almost all of these locomotives, if anyone wishes to. In fact, for some, we don't even need to look very far. The first in the list, British_Rail_Class_D2/10 has a referenced statement in its own article that two are preserved (it's a book that I don't have, so I can't check it genuinely supports the statement). Unfortunately the onus is on the deleter to demonstrate that sources don't exist, not on anyone else to insert them, and I'm not sure I have the energy to track down such a huge number. Taking a completely random example (honestly, I just picked it) British_Rail_Class_25, this also has, in its own article, a table of preserved examples, with no less than 12 references! (if anyone wishes to argue that the list is not necessary on other grounds, feel free!) Elemimele (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Robinson (psychology)

Tim Robinson (psychology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 Derek Jeter#Philanthropy. ✗plicit 13:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turn 2 Foundation

Turn 2 Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentiall everything here is a first party or very local sources. It's an old article from 2008, but Google doesn't find anything significant that's any more recent. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Anyone can add some of the sources mentioned in the discussion to the article if they can be found. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 04:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gods of Chaos

Gods of Chaos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability guidelines at WP:NALBUM. Discogs is not an acceptable source and the second citation is a passing mention. I was not able to find any other coverage in Google. Chrisfilip (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Chrisfilip (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chrisfilip (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or Redirect - Reviewed in Melody Maker, Chicago Sun-Times, Trouser Press, AllMusic; every other RS mention I found was brief. Most likely print coverage, but I'm not interested in digging for it... Caro7200 (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Caro7200, where did you find out that this had been reviewed in Melody Maker? If it was reviewed there, it was probably reviewed in NME as well, as they were sister magazines with the same owners and would probably have been sent the same records to review each week. It doesn't look like there's much information online apart from the AllMusic coverage, but a redirect to the band would certainly be preferable than outright deletion, as there does look like there are reliable sources in print form that could be used in the future. Richard3120 (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is the Feb 28, 1998, issue, page 44. I noticed it through ProQuest but am unable to read it. Caro7200 (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of black Primetime Emmy Award winners and nominees

List of black Primetime Emmy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 01:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 01:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Black winners and nominees have obviously been treated as a group by reliable sources (e.g. Essence), and it's been a topic of much discussion in recent years. Can the nominator expand on why they feel the topic fails WP:NLIST? pburka (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am sure this passes WP:NLIST to some degree (probably not through the most reputable sources) but I think it is a tricky cross-categorisation. My !vote is based on the inherent WP:BLP issues with this. Most sources will probably not have an exhaustive list of "black Primetime Emmy Award winners and nominees" so requires editors to do some compiling of their own. Editors will inevitably do some WP:SYNTH or WP:OR to determine who is "black". I know this might seem silly or like I am a pedant but this is actually a reasonably complex designation (especially for non-Americans). I don't think editors should be the ones to catalogue a living person's ethnicity. Two telling examples currently on the list:
Rashida Jones - could equally appear on a white or Jewish list (see her WP for her own complex views on her identity).
Nick Mohammed - His mother was Cyprus-born and his father an Indo-Trinidadian. As far as I can tell this wouldn't fit into the definition of "black" but it is not my place to make that judgement.
There are many others on the list of ethnically mixed parentage (Nathalie Emmanuel, Giancarlo Esposito, Steven Canals, Ezra Edelman, Maya Rudolph etc). You could possibly move this to List of African-American Primetime Emmy Award winners and nominees (which is an easier designation to verify) but where would that leave Lupita Nyong'o? Ultimately we would need a source confirming a winner/nominee is "black" as well as that they were a winner/nominee and I do not think editors will do that. Then we just end up with WP:BLP and WP:V issues. Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to belabour this point too much but I just noticed Trevor Noah is listed who was designated as coloured in South Africa which is/was a different racial category to black and caused him issues as a child of a “black” mother. Shift this to a US context and he is labelled black. Another example of how this list does not make sense. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another example of political soapbox listcruft that misses the point; trying to arbitrarily divide people into vague “racial” categories when they might have six different equally valid ancestries is outdated and stupid. Dronebogus (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would also suggest including List of Latin and Hispanic Primetime Emmy Award winners and nominees in this which hilariously includes Antonio Banderas and commits many of the same sins. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Vladimir.copic: I agree, but for the record, Antonio Banderas is Spanish. "Hispanic" includes anyone from Spain or other Spanish-speaking countries. Him being on that list is not an error.
      • The list claims to “includes performers born in Latin America and with Latin American descent or heritage.” As far as I can tell being Spanish doesn’t fit this. To be fair this is just funny compared to the more eyebrow-raising placing of the Mexican flag next to American citizens, born in America who happen to have Mexican-American parents. Imagine doing something similar to Americans of European ancestry. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and similar lists. Whilst it is certainly true that "lifestyle" magazines produce lists of this kind, they also produce lists of "the stars' favorite barbecues" and "six mountain resorts you've never heard of": the publication of a list does not create notability per se. I'm particularly worried about how we specify who's on this list and who isn't. I'm pretty sure we can't go and ask every Primetime Emmy Award winner whether they identify as one group or another racially, and there isn't a standard criterion we can apply. I'm grateful to Vladimir.copic for his comments above, which put my somewhat inchoate concerns far more eloquently than I could manage myself! RomanSpa (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's far more than the publications you dismiss as "lifestyle" magazines. This topic has been covered by Hollywood Reporter, Variety, CNN, LA Times, and NY Times. There's no shortage of reliable sources which could be used to satisfy WP:V. pburka (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of those would appear to be about individual black winners or #emmyssowhite which is a wholly different topic than just “black Emmy winners”. So I’d say it still doesn’t pass verifiability standards since individual notability =/= collective notability. Dronebogus (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also think that a dedicated page about EmmysSoWhite or Racial bias in Emmy Awards would be more useful and would be able to provide more context than a simple list. But I'm also not convinced that this list fails WP:LISTN or WP:V. pburka (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I definitely support one or both of the first two, but generally speaking I generally don’t think lists can be good articles if they aren’t about plain, objective information like “tallest buildings” or “people with dwarfism”. Dronebogus (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Clearly you've never been involved in discussions about whether the CN Tower is a building or whether One WTC's spire counts towards its height. The objective criteria for this list is simple: have reliable sources described the people as "Black Primetime Emmy Award winners (or nominees)"? pburka (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • there’s a world of difference between “+/- spire” (just list it off to the side in another column) and whether or not someone gets to be considered a “black person”, reliable sourcing or no. 3rd parties shouldn’t get to arbitrate people’s identities, and self-identification isn’t objective enough to use as the basis for this article. Dronebogus (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Simply untrue to say this is an objective criteria. Just read the intro to the Black People article for confirmation. This page even includes a weird WP:OR definition of what black means for the purposes of this list which is just wrong. Currently the list seems to follow some kind of Americanised one-drop rule for determining blackness. See my above comment about Trevor Noah and other for why this is absurd and has WP:GLOBAL issues. If we just use sources that actually describe someone specifically as a “Black Primetime Emmy Award winner or nominee” (Not African, African-American, Afro-Cuban etc) it will just be a weird hodgepodge of names happening to have been described in this very specific way. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd love to hear from some self-identifying Black Wikipedians about this issue. Bkatcher (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that’s a cool idea, but besides being original research you’re probably just going to get 5 completely different answers from 5 different black Wikipedians (a group I’m not part of). Dronebogus (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A very tragic cross-categorisation on race. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per @Vladimir.copic. This article is a WP:BLP and WP:OR nightmare there is no way to properly verify and maintain. This sub-topic list of black Primetime Emmy Award winners and nominees is also an arbitrary creation. One article for all Primetime Emmy Award winners and nominees is one thing, but a random-segregated WP:OR list fails WP:V. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is proposing for a merge, rather than deletion. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America1000 03:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Food Network (Canadian TV channel)

Food Network (Canadian TV channel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is proposing for a merge, rather than deletion. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America1000 03:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Food Network Asia

Food Network Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Although sources have been provided to indicate that this is a potentially notable topic, consensus is that the current content so substantially fails important content standards such as WP:GAMEGUIDE that it should be removed from mainspace. It can be draftified or userfied for improvement via WP:REFUND if desired. Sandstein 10:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magic: The Gathering theme decks

List of Magic: The Gathering theme decks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG & WP:GAMEGUIDE with only 2 weak secondary sources in the lead. The majority of the article is unsourced & links directly to the Wizards of the Coast website. I would suggest merging the lead to Magic: The Gathering compilation sets. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been listed on the WikiProject Magic: The Gathering talk page. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article was created in 2005‎. [91] There were links to the various articles about the cards. The template still has the links to those articles. Template:Magic:_The_Gathering I don't know anything about this game so can't comment if this article as it is, is useful and valid. Does listing "Colors included" and whatnot matter? The updated list itself is found in the template. Dream Focus 02:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is fairly poor. It's going to meet WP:N as a topic, but I'm not at all sure that means we should have the article. As an editorial matter, this seems not hugely encyclopedic. I'm going to go with keep because AfD isn't the right place to discuss merging or redirecting a topic that meets WP:N, but I'd be open a discussion on the talk page involving merging or redirecting if someone can identify a good target. Hobit (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I also don't play Magic & only accidentally ended up on an article improvement kick for this game. Like User:Piotrus, most of what I found was about Commander which was useful for the Magic: The Gathering Commander#Commander sets which specifically lists the preconstructed products for that format. Part of why I went AfD over merge discussion was that I couldn't find much about the use/history of theme decks in the various formats. So while the concept of theme decks might be good to merge elsewhere, I'm not entirely sure how to make the list of charts readable for someone without deep knowledge of the game. Like User:Dream Focus, the list of charts mostly left me with questions. For example, why are the number of cards in a deck not standard across all decks; I assume that's because these decks are intended for different formats but I would love sources to explain that X theme decks are intended for A format while Y theme decks are intended for B format. Is "theme deck" suppose to mean "all preconstructed decks" as User:Qwaiiplayer says below? Did WoTC changes their marketing terms and if so, when? Etc. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:33, 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 merge to List of unidentified murder victims in Texas. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harris County Does

Harris County Does (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. The majority of the sources are primary sources such as missing person databases and government/law enforcement websites. Much of the articles constitutes WP:Original research or WP:Original synthesis of primary sources. The news coverage is WP:ROUTINE coverage for police investigating John Doe cases and doesn't count as RS per WP:NOTNEWS. Topic lacks any independent significant coverage in reliable sources. According to NAMUS, law enforcement processes over 4,000 unidentified bodies a year in the United States; so there is nothing inherently notable about cases like these. Further the naming is problematic as Harris County has many more does in their cold case files. 4meter4 (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harbour Plaza

Harbour Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Special to the Star" indicates that the article was written by a freelancer, but the same editorial standards that apply to staff-written articles apply to those by freelancers at the Star. BlogTO appears to be a reliable source with advertising and editorial clearly separated. It also responds quickly when I've told it about an error in an article. The Toronto edition of Metro has ceased publication, but I added an archived version of that page from Internet Archive. Yes, Canada Newswire is a press release distribution service like Business Wire or PR Newswire in the United States. Urban Toronto seems to be as reliable as any print publication. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the standard of Urban Toronto is not at issue. What is at issue is the notability of this tower. Since Urban Toronto writes about EVERY project in Toronto, a mention in UT does not make a project notable. Alaney2k (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Janey Jacké

Janey Jacké (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. I'm having difficulty assessing the Dutch language sourcing, but I'm inclined to keep based on the filmography and English sourcing such as Gay Times. Also, I fully acknowledge rumors should not be taken into account, but multiple sources have speculated that the subject is set to appear on the upcoming 'international all stars' season within the Drag Race franchise. I think we should work to expand and not delete this entry. Also, the nominator's one (hyphenated) word nomination is not really an assessment of sourcing or a well thought out analysis... ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Standalone articles about the subject include Gay Times (which states "Janey has proven to be one of the most formidable contestants in Drag Race’s ever-expanding history") here; Elle (combined article with one other drag queen) here; Noordhollands Dagblad here; and Nieuw Volendam (from 2019) here. Then of course there's dozens of articles assessing her appearance on RPDR combined with coverage of other queens. I agree with Another Believer that this article should be expanded, not deleted. --Kbabej (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piper Rockelle

Piper Rockelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a non-notable "influencer" that was apparently accepted from AfC and then marked as reviewed at NPP, when it clearly was not in a state to be accepted, by NagalimNE. I tried searching for sources, as the ones in the article are merely trivial coverage, run-of-the-mill or otherwise entirely unreliable, and all that I could find was more run-of-the-mill coverage on minor incidents that do not establish notability per WP:BASIC. Also fails WP:ENT. JavaHurricane 07:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JavaHurricane 07:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JavaHurricane 07:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. JavaHurricane 07:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whether a redirect is merited is a separate editorial decision. ✗plicit 03:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Clivense

F.C. Clivense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme1499 00:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nehme. The thing is that we have articles for English clubs as far down as the tenth tier. A phoenix club in Italy would surely gain significant coverage if its team were successful in reaching the eighth tier so I think I'd like this to be saved as a draft until we see how they progress. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@No Great Shaker: The difference is that there are about 160 clubs playing in the English 8th tier, whereas there are almost 3,000 playing in the Seconda Categoria. Nehme1499 01:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_September_22&oldid=1045880473"