Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 08	November 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Philip

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

I'm unable to find any substantial or any notable information about the subject that's independent and not a "Q&A". Current article and its sources also appear to be more about her company which I have doubts whether it satisfies "WP:NCORP" so it may be worth revisiting whether it deserves to remain in the mainspace. WomenProj (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WomenProj (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. --WomenProj (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in particular to add beyond what the OP already said. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:32, 10 November 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 03:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frontera (web crawling)

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

Non-notable software. No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tagged this for notability, years ago, and no reliable sources have been added since. I just did another search and I see nothing usable. - MrOllie (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find any third-party coverage, only GutHub repo and Habr posts written by the author of this software. Also, this article reads like promotional content written by authors of the said software. Anton.bersh (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

152 (film)

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

Last Afd was 13 years ago. Fails WP:NFILM. Note that it featured at the Kansai International Film Festival which is up for deletion. The film maker actually is the founder of this film festival. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There are sources, even if only in web archives. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 23 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Macclesfield Basketball Club

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

Basketball club in the village of Macclesfield, South Australia (Population ~ 700) in the Adelaide Hills. Plays in a local league against other villages in the Adelaide Hills. No notable achievements or sources likely. Given that around 25% of people in Australia are aged 12-35, they have around 150 prime-aged people to choose from, so less people available than an average high school ~ 1000 students. So not notable since we don't have articles for high school sports teams. Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a local club which fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The population of the town has absolutely no bearing on whether the article should be kept or not. The only thing that matters is whether the team has the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE should have been conducted to establish whether it does or not. Alvaldi (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This club has no sporting merit and there is nothing out there apart from its Facebook page and just the local league stats Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nominating this article for deletation if a search during WP:BEFORE showed no significant coverage would be a good and valid reason. However, nominating it because the team comes from a small town and stating it is "not notable since we don't have articles for high school sports teams" is not a valid reason. Alvaldi (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is some sustained long term coverage of the subject. I have not checked these but there are potentially over 500 references available here. The significant majority of these will be routine and-or minor and some not relevant, but even if only 1% are good references, there may be sufficient to support GNG. Looks like insufficient BEFORE was done. Aoziwe (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm was fine with it staying until I saw no references. Wp9097 (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article doesn't cite a single source and fails GNG. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - first of all, thanks to Aoziwe for finding that resource. None of the results on the "National" level return results that pertain to this topic. This topic covers the league formed in 2011, and none of the post-2011 entries are relevant to the topic at hand. There are a lot of results from the 1950s, but these are without exception routine coverage reporting scores. I couldn't find any in-depth coverage of the topic, even in WP:LOCALINT sources. Therefore I can't find any of our criteria which indicates the topic encyclopedically notable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:26, 17 November 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 03:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kansai International Film Festival

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

Fails WP:GNG. A one off festival that lacks significant third party coverage. Not sure if there are Japanese sources as there is no Japanese article. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:38, 9 November 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) 05:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Popboomerang

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Minor independent record label with very few notable artists, contrary to the claims at the last AFD 9 years ago. Geschichte (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Popboomerang Records is one of Australia's most recognised small independent record lables, with several releases by notable artists. The article is now referenced, supporting its notability.Dan arndt (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the several releases? The article says that 7 notable artists released 14 records, that's not much at all, that's actually very little. Geschichte (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded the article, I've tried to track down references for nearly all releases (some of these are brief mentions e.g. AllMusic listing or release info). Some substantial, independent references have also been supplied, typically for 10th anniversary, 100th release or Various Artist compilations. There are more than 7 notable artists providing more than 14 records. How many are sufficient?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know you've put in a ton of work referencing all the releases *but* we need references that talk about the *company* itself in order to meet the criteria for establishing notability - see WP:NCORP. Also you might find that going from 7 references to 67 references is not always considered an improvement especially if they're all pointing to announcements about records and artists... see MOS:OVERLINK and WP:REFBOMB. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I'd consider this to be more than sufficient personally, but I can understand the opposite perspective here. It's a tricky case, since discussion about the company is almost always indirect, due to the very nature of the industry (unless there's controversy of course, but it seems wrong to only allow for coverage of modern record labels who have done controversial things). I might be wrong here, but that's my personal take. Yitz (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on recent improvements?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *about the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, most are referencing the music produced by the company or the artists (announcements, etc) or there's the odd quote/interview with someone affiliated with the company but nothing that meets our criteria for notability of the company itself. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the impressive efforts by Shaidar cuebiyar, the new references do not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The AllMusic references demonstrate only that the albums were references but WP:ITEXISTS is not enough to demonstrate notability under the applicable standards. The best sources about the company or its principals are brief one-paragraph passing mentions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Geschichte above, questioned the number notable artists and their releases. Indicating there were not enough notable artists. In my vote above I've specified that AllMusic listings (and some similar refs) are largely to support releases per Artists and Discography sections. However, I also added other references, which do describe the label and its releases in more detail. I dispute the interpretation that the new references do not demonstrate significant coverage or that they are not reliable, independent sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response "Independent" has two elements. The first is corporate independent - fair enough, no corporate links between the reporting entity and the topic company. The second element is "Independent Content" (defined in WP:ORGIND) and I included a summary above. None of your references are independent because none provide "Independent Content" *about the company*. For example, articles that rely entirely on interviews with no analysis/opinion by the author fail ORGIND. We need more than mentions-in-passing or two lines saying Thurling founded the topic company - we require an in-depth article on the topic company (not the founder nor the artists or albums) containing "Independent Content". If you still believe there are references which meet the criteria for establishing notability, please include links to the best WP:THREE below so we can look at them. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:46, 14 November 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) 06:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Marsh (writer)

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

A game designer who fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. Pilaz (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a very difficult one, because "Ian Marsh" is an extremely common name, the field in which he works is one that's dominated by fan sites and unreliable sources, and much of his significant work dates to before the internet. It's extremely hard to think of a search term that will find him, and in reliable places. But here's the thing: he was assistant editor of White Dwarf, the games magazine run by Games Workshop, for 27 editions (and chief editor for 4). Games Workshop is, historically, the most significant games company in the UK, responsible for the early dissemination of Dungeons and Dragons in the UK, and thus the birth of the modern gaming industry. White Dwarf is of enormous significance to role-play gamers (who are a very large group of WP readers). Although Marsh wasn't at the level of Ian Livingstone and Steve Jackson (whose game-books can still be found in every public library), he was an influential figure at a pivotal time in the history of gaming, and I'm very nervous about deleting this article. I think it's of genuine and legitimate interest to our readers. Elemimele (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 16 November 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 03:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andorra–Turkey relations

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

Fails WP:GNG. Andorra being a very small country would not be expected to have much relations with other countries. There's a bit of trade but no embassies, agreements, state visits etc. The Turkish foreign affairs site says not much. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:40, 9 November 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. ✗plicit 03:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Sorg

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

Written more like a resume than an encyclopedia article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this looks like any other biographical article on Wikipedia. References could use improvements and more content could be added, and searching his name on Google and going to "news" yields many useful articles to allow the article to be improved if needed. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WaddlesJP13 , a Google search for Rolf Sorg turns up Wikipedia & mirrors, as well as his social media. Fails WP:SIGCOV (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep.per above.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 12:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First: I have a conflict of interest. Do you not see criteria (Wikipedia:Notability (people)) met with the following sources? Manager Magazin (German), Delano (English), Delano (English), Rheinpfalz (German), Bild (German), Wort (German), Paperjam (English), Capital (French), TV2 (Norwegian)? Kind regards, --CobaltElephant (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:21, 9 November 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tito Arévalo