Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 01	December 03 >

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Far Eastern Republic

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

There was no such a republic. The user's been pushing this mystification in Ukrainian Wikipedia for a quite long time now. There was indeed a cultural autonomy of Ukrainians in the Far Eastern Republic, but the sources provide no confirmation that the colony's independence was ~~even considered, let alone~~ established (or "self-proclaimed", as the article states). It was considered though Piramidion 15:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an abstract of the second reference used in the article:

The Far Eastern Ukrainian Secretariat planned to hold a Far Eastern congress, which was to proclaim a Ukrainian state in the Far East known as Zelena Ukraina (Green Ukraine), but in November 1922 the Far Eastern Republic was occupied by the Red Army.
— Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine

--Piramidion 00:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Since from what I can tell a lot of it is either made up or only loosely based on historical facts. On the "were they an independent colony" question, there's no evidence that they were an officially recognized independent colony and a self-proclaimed one is rather meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Not that there's evidence they had self-proclaimed independence anyway. At least not from what I can tell. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a POV fork of Green Ukraine. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose as Ukrainian Far Eastern Congress or merge into Green Ukraine (which currently dies not cover the same ground). The article appears to have sources, though not ones that I can read. Its tone and content is credible, as an element of the chaos following the collapse of the Russian Empire and the attempts of the White Russians to rescue something from the advance of Bolshevik forces. I lack the linguistic skills to tell if the sources support the content. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to "merge" or "repurpose, because it is 97% unreferenced and hence impossible to verify. Keeping in mind that some modern Ukrainians are on the quest to rewrite their history. The current Uk-wiki is horribly plagued by this, on par with croatian one. And this problem starts seeping in enwiki was well. E.g., some time ago I noticed efforts to delete historical Russian names from articles about Ukrainian towns. 18:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Loew Galitz (talk • contribs)
  It does not "start", it is already full-scale here for several years. There are multiple users who are only rewriting here Ukrainian history in line with the government propaganda and not doing anything else.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  
  user:Loew Galitz, if there’s an inherent national characteristic of modern Ukrainians that makes them unsuitable as Wikipedia editors, then let’s start a conversation about it and figure out how to identify members of this troublesome species and keep them in their place. Or maybe please try to comment more thoughtfully. —Michael Z. 21:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Mzajac, your irony is misplaced. A while ago I saw a statement that ukrainian govt spearheaded an effort to "present Ukrainian point of view in Wikipedia" . If it is not a call for nation-wide POV pushing then I dont know. And since the government represents the people, then I cannt judge to what extent pov-pusing has become "national characteristic of modern ukrainians". Loew Galitz (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Here you go: I googled "ukrainian point of view"+wikipedia, and lo:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-04-26/News_and_notes . "MFA Launches Ambitious Campaign To Enrich Wikipedia with Unbiased Information On Ukraine and the World" - Well, from what I know, "Unbiased Information On Ukraine" includes the statement that Stepan Bandera is a hero of Ukraine an not a Nazi collaborator and antiSemite.... Loew Galitz (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you should keep your own prejudices at bay and stop your insinuations right at this point. Being a Ukrainian myself, I'm offended by your derogatory attitude, both to Ukrainians, and to ukwiki editors. Ukwiki indeed has a lot of problems in this regard, but it's not as bad as you're trying to picture. --Piramidion 01:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

user:Loew Galitz, you made a broad, factually unsupportable, negative statement about “modern Ukrainians.” In my opinion it is completely unacceptable in any Wikipedia discussions. This talk page is subject to WP:ACDS. Please strike it out or delete it. —Michael Z. 04:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, sorry for overgeneralization. I changed to "some modern ukrainians". Loew Galitz (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Loew Galitz, I still object. Wikipedians do not register their passport, national identity, nor DNA test. Negative national stereotyping of broad groups is not useful nor helpful for this or any discussion. It only encourages a WP:BATTLEGROUND, based on you and other editors arbitrarily categorizing each other and associating your stereotypes with factual positions on article content. Please, lets not start naming the quests of some Russians, some Poles, some Jews, some Crimean Tatars, some Rusyns, and everyone else. Please just strike or delete that. —Michael Z. 21:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I will not. Ukrainian govrnment announced a concerted effort to edit wikipedia to their likes. This has nothing to do with "my stereotypes". It is a fact of grave concern for neutrality of Wikipedia. A while ago something similar happened with concerted editing of Wikipedia by Israelis and this was elevated to the level of Arbcom. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, User:Loew Galitz, I don’t see Arbcom posting notes on Israel-related discussions warning us to watch out for Israeli spies and fifth columnists, nor handing out leaflets on how to identify a Russki after Putin said Wikipedia was unreliable and ought to be replaced. I’m taking this to WP:ANI#Negative ethnic stereotyping by Loew Galitz. —Michael Z. 23:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV fork.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Ukrainian Far Eastern movement or Ukrainian Far Eastern congresses (caps thus) per Peterkingiron, above, and clean up; or merge referenced material into Green Ukraine and Far Eastern Republic. There is a corresponding uk.wiki article, w:uk:Український далекосхідний рух (“Ukrainian Far Eastern movement”), which this appears to resemble (while this article’s corresponding w:uk: Далекосхідна Україна, “Far Eastern Ukraine,” is tagged for deletion). The Encyclopedia of Ukraine’s article “Far East” covers this subject in its “Organized Life” section, and also “Far Eastern Ukrainian congresses”. (Note: Far East is normally capitalized in English, so it should be capped in a common name.) —Michael Z. 20:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I would support Ukrainian Far Eastern movement. My approach is to treat what is credible as if it is correct, even if not adequately referenced. The conflict between red and white Russians in the aftermath of WWI was chaotic and potential source material may well have been suppressed by the victors, so that I am not too worried by a dearth of references. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:54, 17 December 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. Daniel (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Goodwill

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

Lack of sufficient notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references covering him. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - well there's this. Nfitz (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:55, 12 December 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) 17:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skin Salveation

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

Appears to be an unremarkable company, failing WP:NCORP. I could not find any more independent coverage than the cited Northumberland Gazette piece (which reads mostly like a press release, perhaps not entirely independent) and a passing mention in this Guardian article. Lennart97 (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Skin Salveation was a very small company for one year between 2003 and 2004; thereafter it became a very small company called Dermasalve sciences ltd. until 2006, when it became a very small company called dermasalve ltd, which went broke in 2012, putting all four of its employees out of a job. The current article links to a company 'skin salve' whose address returns nothing from Companies house, and whose name is equally fruitless. Kompass list them as employing 0-9 employees. This is only one step up from one-person-and-a-web-page. Elemimele (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This company lacks significant notability.TH1980 (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of notability or pass of WP:NORG. nearlyevil 665 06:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, no references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks SIGCOV to warrant inclusion as per NCORP.VirenRaval89 (talk) 12:16, 9 December 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 23:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruda Real

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

Singer who died young. No references and I cant find any trace of what is claimed to be his famous song "Bounce Ya on My Pole". Rathfelder (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the sources on him (using both real and stage names) seem to be copied from Wikipedia, and looking up his “hit” song gets nothing but random pole dancing -related videos and porn. The supposed involvement with Boyz II Men either went something like BRINGERS OF DARKNESS “opening” for Metallica or didn’t happen at all. Could possibly even be speedy deleted as a hoax. Dronebogus (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Hoax or not, there's absolutely nothing on the internet about him from anything resembling a reliable source. The IP who created the article was warned several times and blocked regarding their edits. Richard3120 (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dronebogus and Richard3120. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments provided above. The article does not satisfy any notability criteria whatsoever. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and send to the hoax museum. If deleted and proven as a hoax, it would be the longest-lasting hoax on the English Wikipedia, existing since June 3, 2005. wizzito | say hello! 23:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barrio Planta Project

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

The article is about a non-profit organization that teaches people who to surf and do hip-hop dancing. So it has to pass WP:NORG. Which it clearly doesn't since all the references in the article are either primary, dead links, or extremely coverage. I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE that would help it pass WP:NORG either. Not surprising really considering what it is. Maybe other people can find something workable for notability though. I'm no expert on Nicaraguan surfing/hip-hop "schools." Adamant1 (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 2 December 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. Daniel (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ben R. Marshall

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

Generic police chief of mid-size city arguably falls under WP:NPOL and notability is not shown. Was chief for less than a year and souces are routine and local. Reywas92^Talk 14:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 14:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability here - insubstantial RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American International School of Conakry

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

The article has had a notability template on it since 2016, all the references in it are primary, and I was unable to find anything to help with notability when I looked. Therefore, from what I can tell this fails both WP:GNG and WP:NORG Adamant1 (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage, or really anything that could establish nobility. Google returns social media pages, wiki mirrors, lists/indexes, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJoeBee (talk • contribs) 05:12, 3 December 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 Pittsburgh Police Chief. Daniel (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Ward (police officer)

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

Generic police chief of mid-size city arguably falls under WP:NPOL and notability is not shown. Heck, he was acting police chief for less than three weeks so I'm baffled why my redirect to Pittsburgh Police Chief was reverted. Souces are routine and local. Reywas92^Talk 14:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 14:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pittsburgh Police Chief as previously done by Reywas92, although I would also support an outright delete too, however the latter offers some degree of potential unsuitable recreation. There are very few if any mentions of this person, beyond a handful of passing mentions but I cannot determine anything significant to assert notability. The Pittsburgh Police Chief lists many red links to former officers but this doesn't automatically mean each are notable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per above Mujinga (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not independently notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:54, 12 December 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) 17:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shawna Elizabeth

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

The subject appears to have requested deletion [1]. The current references are interviews and blogs. I looked for better ones and didn't find anything useful. Cheers, gnu 57 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and because my research has also not found support for notability per WP:NMODEL/WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:BASIC. In my review of the article and its sources, I made edits that included removal of what appears to be coatrack material, and the article still looks like a promotional vehicle for radio shows, magazines, other wrestlers, and events, because her roles are not described as significant, even when marginal sourcing is available to verify her participation. Beccaynr (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Worth pointing out that whether or not the subject requests deletion is irrelevant; we don't remove content on that basis. However, I do agree that this doesn't appear to pass GNG: it the article seems to mostly just be a fairly arbitrary rundown of her career. — Czello 09:18, 7 December 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 03:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Moore (police officer)

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

Generic police chief of mid-size city arguably falls under WP:NPOL and notability is not shown. Souces are insubstantive and routine local announcements. Reywas92^Talk 14:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 14:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Mujinga (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:53, 12 December 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mayer DeRoy

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

Generic police chief of mid-size city arguably falls under WP:NPOL and notability is not shown. Souces are insubstantive and routine local announcements. Reywas92^Talk 14:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 14:11, 2 December 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. Daniel (talk) 04:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Umuhoza

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

Can't see that sources are good enough to establish notability TheLongTone (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominated 11 minutes after creation; no WP:BEFORE effort listed. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, sweetiepie. I looked up the sources and had a nose around. I've AfD's articles in a shorter time after their creation, incidentally.TheLongTone (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone: Referring to another editor in an intimate manner is not appropriate for an encyclopedic discussion. Please remove that portion of your reply. BD2412 T 00:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands for being promotional. I will watchlist this discussion to see if any actual claims to notability surface. Geschichte (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did my due diligence. I can't find multiple reliable secondary sources that cover the subject in a significant way. This article features her and her business partner but the article is about the business, not specifically Umuhoza. Perhaps in the future! Missvain (talk) 23:03, 22 December 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 deleted by HJ Mitchell (non-admin closure) – The Grid (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go Fish Animation

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

Empty article, should probably be written in Sandbox before being published. DirkJandeGeer (щи) 13:47, 2 December 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 deleted by HJ Mitchell. (non-admin closure) – The Grid (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Animals United 2: The Chilldown

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

this is an empty article, and the user seems to have created quite a few empty articles DirkJandeGeer (щи) 13:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naina Singh

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

This article doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. I tried to search on Google, and couldn't find any independent "significant coverage". The best helping thing in this article is that the subject has been a winner at MTV Splitsvilla in 2017. This doesn't help the actress pass WP:ANYBIO in my opinion. WP:NMODEL isn't met because there is nothing substantial role except in the Kumkum Bhagya and I do not see any borderline pass for WP:BASIC. Comments please. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 09:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 09:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 09:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 09:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a classic case of how liberal you want to be with WP:BASIC. She is listed in the main cast at Kumkum Bhagya so there is some notability at WP:NACTOR but even NACTOR requires multiple roles. So we can't use that to establish notability. I vaguely remember that winners of reality TV shows were considered notable but I am not able to find that essay now. Fairly possible that my memory is incorrect - hence refraining to use that as an argument. GNG is not met for sure. We are left with WP:BASIC and come back to how conservative we want to be. If we are on conservative side, we will see all sources as regular PR announcements driven by PR agencies. If we are liberal, we will take note of multiple WP:RS writing at least one to two paragraphs about the subject. So all depends on where we are on the spectrum! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NACTOR with a prominent role in Kumkum Bhagya and winning Splitsville which I would consider as a reality television role and its certainly a prominent role in a notable production. There are plenty of reliable sources in the article already to confirm a pass of WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG so there is no valid reason for deletion in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't pass GNG as most of the coverage appears to be PR. I don't think it satisfies WP:NACTOR as well which requires multiple significant roles. It lacks here. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 04:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be plenty of press on her, from established Indian Media (The Times of India, etc). Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:44, 17 December 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 he's not yet suitable notable. Star Mississippi 03:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laith Alattar

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

Previously deleted via PROD but subsequently restored. Alattar is a non-notable musician; he fails the WP:MUSICBIO criteria and the GNG. A WP:BEFORE search finds no significant coverage: only trivial mentions of various performances at local festivals, etc. It appears (although I'm not entirely certain) that he's also a psychologist in the employ of the Social Security Administration, but he doesn't seem to have garnered any more notability from that role than from his musical career. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I tried to find anything truly significant, but there really isn't much. Here is his IMDb page, but it just looks depressing, Here is his Linkedin profile, but again there really isn't anything much that makes him special. He does have a YouTube channel with nearly 11k subscribers, but still 11k subscribers is a miniscule amount, and doesn't really contribute much to notability. Fairfax Times did mention him here however that talks more about the event rather than Alattar's life and playing. He does participate in a couple events, like the SHIN-DC "Comospolitian Journey to Greek" and this, but again those aren't that big of an event. The 2nd event I stated might also explain whatever this is. Finally, he is a contributor of this book, which seems to be pretty significant. However, all of these are either a. Insignificant or contribute little to no notability at all or b. Only passing mentions. So while Alattar seems to be a smart and interesting person, just not notable enough for his own article. Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this discussion does result in a keep, then the article needs to expand more on his psychology studies and work, he seems to also be philosophical. Again, still, I think the article should be deleted. Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RandomEditorAAA. All sources are neither independent nor significant enough for the subject to be notable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:11, 10 December 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 13:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan Canadians

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

Per this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. No relations page to merge to. Geschichte (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the level of migration is very low and not subject to significant coverage failing WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the level of migration is very low, no RS here supporting WP:GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:GNG, not even close. MarioGom (talk) 11:55, 16 December 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 03:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Georgians in Latvia

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

Per this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. No relations page to merge to. Geschichte (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the level of migration is very low and not subject to significant coverage failing WP:GNG. Migrants struggling with the local language happens worldwide. LibStar (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAs above, insignificant migrant community, article content is thin. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:33, 12 December 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 23:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab Lok Congress

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

I earlier proposed this article for deletion but the prod tag was deleted by user Curbon7 with a reason that "contesting PROD; party holds a seat in a parliament" which is incorrect because as per this list on the official Punjab Government site Punjab Lok Congress does not hold any seat in the Punjab Legislative Assembly. I tried to reach Curbon7 but they did not reply to my message. The party was founded just 2-3 weeks ago and has not yet participated in any elections. It was in the news due to its founder who is a notable figure otherwise there is no independent coverage. IMO the article should be deleted or merged with its founder's article. Thanks 1.23.212.76 (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pretty tough, this one. The party is a split of the Indian National Congress; the split occurred due to a lot of politics involving Amarinder Singh, the founder of the new party, and until a month ago the Punjab Chief Minister. I'd not use the Punjab Vidhan Sabha table in any case; the Anti-defection Law means that sitting MLAs won't risk joining the party just yet, unless it's a big split, especially given the murky political situation in Punjab - elections are due there in 3 months. The split itself recieved a lot of attention for a week or so across India, and as a result I am thinking, without running a BEFORE search, that the party passes the GNG. NCORP (a higher bar) is the criterion that applies (though I feel it already might meet it - not 100% sure though, as I haven't run a check), that said, and given that not much time has passed since the split (and I am getting the idea that it is a major split), I cannot definitively say if WP:LASTING is met yet. For now, I'd suggest keeping the article until the election is done; we'll have a definite idea of whether the party meets NCORP and has LASTING notability by then. Java Hurricane 15:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And if it gets deleted now, surely someone will notice the red link / absence of link on 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election and just start it all over again. If the party is really going to have candidates for every seat, they'll get enough news coverage between now and March to be independent of the founder, and merging the article into Amarinder Singh would only have served to introduce a lot of chaos there. -- asilvering (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP is an inappropriate standard here, WP:NONPROFIT is the correct standard to apply. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Substantial, independent reliable source coverage separate from the party founder readily available. Satisfies EVENT and the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amarinder Singh is the former chief minister of punjab, a way more notable person than Chirag Paswan but still his new party's page (Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas)) is not even considered to be deleted, and this man who was the chief minister of a state untill just a few days ago, his new party's page is being questioned, i dont think this is WP:NPOV also according to media sources, ([2]) this party is at the final state of talks with Bharatiya Janata Party (national party) for coalition, if these talks get succeeded then this party's page will no longer have notability issue, and just FYI this party's name has more than 50,900 google search results compared to much lower 7,680 results of Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) party's name. Ishqho (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep I don't think this party article should be deleted because Party founder is the former chief minister Amarinder Singh of Punjab. Bihariboy Rahul (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goldsztajn passes WP:GNG and WP:EVENT has Substantial, independent reliable source coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:09, 6 December 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) 04:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Major Surender Dahiya

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

No indication of notability. Appears to fail GNG too Gbawden (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apprears to be a WP:BLP that fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG as there is no evidence of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Only sourced parts of the article are the promotion dates. A few awards, but nothing that would reach WP:ANYBIO#1. Military service seems non-notable. The major contributor seems to be an WP:SPA with a name (User:MajorSurenderDahiya) that raises concern of WP:COI/WP:AUTOBIO. The page history is weird because the user has a redirect from his talk page to the article. I'd be also content with draftify. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ljleppan Why will you be content with draftify? Do you believe he is notable or will be notable in 6 months (when the drafts get deleted)? On what basis do you believe that? Venkat TL (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL: Thanks for asking for clarification, I see now that my wording was... less than clear. What I was after is essentially this: It's possible I would have missed some references (e.g. either offline and/or Indic language sources), so if someone jumps in with a claim along the lines of "he's notable, I just can't find the references right now" I'd be personally fine with draftifying to give them time to work in the draft space, rather than outright nuking it. But absent any such claims (and a willing editor to find and add the required references) this should be deleted. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. I thought you had seen something convincing already. For now I am not seeing anything extra ordinary. The article is a run of the mill military officer and seems to be created for self promotion. Such articles should be speedily deleted, draftifying is not suggested. If something important happens in future, they can be recreated with reliable sources. Venkat TL (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC also apparent WP:AUTO breach. Mztourist (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No major award or post held. No coverage in reliable media. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:BIO Venkat TL (talk) 07:40, 3 December 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 Moot. This is now a disambiguation page and no longer an article. If this change does not stick, the article can be renominated for deletion. Sandstein 17:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Space folding

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

I've prodded this recently created article (2020 vintage) with " This is basically a poorly referenced fork of Hyperspace which has recently been rewritten. I propose a WP:SOFTDELETE and redirecting this there. While I could be bold and redirect this myself, I dislike stealthy deletions by redirecting; hence the PROD. If the PROD reviewer agrees with me, please just redirect this as proposed. If not, we can discuss this at AfD.". It was deprodded by User:Artw with "Removed prod - is clearly not a fork of Hyperspace. Other grounds may remain but should probably be dealt with at AfD.". I'll also ping User:Mark McWire who has been editing the article. Speaking as the editor who recently wrote GA space travel in science fiction, cleaned up/rewrote hyperspace, and with Mark and User:Daranios also cleaned up Warp drive (not finished yet), I have to say repeat that "space folding" should be just a redirect, preferably to "hyperspace", where this topic is discussed (or maybe to "warp drive", where it is also mentioned). The current "space folding" article is just a WP:SYNTH list of random examples of works that used this term, the old WP:FANCRUFTY bad style that we are now slowly removing from articles, transforming such listicles into the encyclopedic style overviews, as seen in RS like the ones seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction. In my review of the sources I've noticed that the concept of space folding is mentioned occasionally in passing, but only as an explanation of more popular concepts of hyperspace or warp drive. The concept is not indexed in the Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction nor does it even appear at all in the [3] The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, and other sources mention it in passing (if at all). Given the low quality of referencing currently in the article (ex. this Washington Post article that does not even mention the concept, and most other sources cited also fail this - probably because they were merged from semi-relevant articles like wormholes in fiction, based on edit history and talk page notices I see... although I don't understand why this was merged here at all) I think a redirect without merging is the most SOFTDELETish way of dealing with this I can imagine. PS. If it wasn't clear, the topic also fails WP:GNG. PPS. I should also mention that the topic of "space folding" seems to exist in sciences (math/physics/chemistry?), but the article here has no mention of this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC) PPS. I double-checked other reference works: Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction - not in the index; Encyclopedia Of Science Fiction - not mentioned anywhere in the body; The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy - ditto; The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction - still nothing; Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia - guess what, nothing. The new Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia seems to use the word fold when describing the concept of a warp drive, that's about the most relevant usage I could find.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 3 December 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} 10:26, 2 December 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} 10:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would put the term together with wormholes in fiction, if we decide to delete the entire article. The existence of hyperspace is not necessary for space folding and there are examples, such as Event Horizon, where hyperspace does not exist in the story, but space folding as an fictional concept. In contrast, almost all fictitious wormholes work via space folding and real Wormholes descripted as connection in space via space-time folding. The example of Event Horizon should be adopted in any new location, as the principle of space folding is clearly explained and shown in the film. --Mark McWire (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why wormholes and not warp drive? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because in for example Star Trek, space folding is a separate concept. While warp drive is an everyday technology, at least in representation in the franchise, space folding is something very rare. A technology that is difficult to achieve and that is superior to warp drive. Physically, both are based on different approaches. If you were to mix the two articles, you would have to explain why space folding is part of the lemma "warp drive". And at the same time, all sources for the Star Trek franchise say that warp drive and space folding are two different things. It would be an internal contradiction. There are some intersections between warp drive, space folding, wormholes and hyperspace. But there remain four basic concepts that are based on different physical and hypothetical approaches. In the case of wormholes, there is at least the folding of space-time. We can argue that space folding is only a synonym for space-time folding. An abbreviated or simplified version of this term, so to speak. If anyone could prove this interpretation with a source, it would even be worth considering redirecting the lemma to the general theory of relativity. --Mark McWire (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, these sources link space folding to wormholes: [4], [5], [6], [7]. Daranios (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We could mention something in wormholes in fiction article, sure. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand or merge to wormholes in fiction and disambiguate. First, I agree with Mark McWire. The sources about A Wrinkle in Time and the space.com article link the concept to wormholes, as Stephen Hawking seems to have done, if this site is to be believed; the Grazier article also distinguishes space folding from hyperspace, so we should not merge there. The idea I have in my mind from Dune does not fit to Deep Space 9 style wormholes, so merging to wormholes in fiction is not a perfect fit; it's a shame that p. 205 of the Grazier article is not visible, that might change or reinforce the case for merge. So based on what I've seen of secondary sources this alone does not need a separate article, a merge would be fine for me. If more sources (again, what's there on p.205?) would be found, I am happy to change my opinion.

I also came upon the concept in science (and science-fiction) which the nominator already mentioned: Here, and more clearly here, p. 236, space folding refers to space curvature due to gravity, which if, as a sci-fi concept, artificially induced, could significantly shorten space travel times, but not make them instantaneous. So if we take that into account, we could keep this as a stand-alone article discussing both concepts and their differences (and possibly more from maths, etc.). Or make this a disambiguation page and adapt what we have into wormholes in fiction, and refer for the other part to, I guess, General relativity. Daranios (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IF someone writes about the real-science concepts, arguably some small 'in fiction' section could exist. But right now we have only the 'in ficition' content, and badly written/referenced at that. WP:TNT case, I am afraid - but if someone is motivated to fix this, go ahead. However, in the current form, a redirect (I am fine with 'wormholes in ficiton' instead of 'hyperspace' as the target) is the best outcome for the read, who should not be served this messy, OR-ish and GNG-failing topic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If something is called a wrinkle in space or folded space, when the descriptions match, hardly seem original research to me. We have two books (and a very short mention in a magazine article) talking about the concept in A Wrinkle in Time. We have a book about the concept in Dune. That does not seem to fit WP:TNT to me. I've now seen that p. 203 of the Dune source directly links the scientific concept of space folding with the sci-fi concept of instantaneous travel via folded space. And AfD is not clean-up, so I think the fact that we could write a reasonable article fullfilling WP:GNG is enough to neither delete nor redirect without merging this article. Daranios (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far descriptions matching, thi is an argument for redirecting this to warp drive, which is all about warping/folding space. And considering the current article has not a byte about real science that may be related to this, yes, TNT very much applies. There is nothing valuable or salvageable in the our poorly referenced plot summary that is nothing but a poor listicle of 'this term is used in works A, B and C'. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the sources still link our kind of space folding here to wormholes, not warp drive. And we do cover fictional concepts, as well as fictional treatments of real concepts, with "Are there secondary sources about it?" being our main criterion. So I don't see what we have as worthless.

Otherwise this topic is getting more and more interesting every time I look: I actually think Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia gets it wrong when comparing our "fold space like a paper" to Star Trek's warp drive/the Alcubierre drive, if other sources about the warp drive are to be believed. It seems to me we are dealing with a number of separate ideas, all linked by "the shape of space is changed" (and therefore sometimes all referred to as folded space/space folding), but distinct:

1) General relativity gives us the scientific concept that space can be curved by gravity.

2) Then on the one end of the spectrum of sci-fi concepts we have the warp drive, which creates a comparatively small bubble of space, which is driven through the rest of space by a density gradient of space.

3) Next we have the compression of space as described in That's Weird!, where a real distance remains. And which would impact the whole route, as compared to the localized warp bubble.

4) A more extreme version of that would be wormholes in the style of DS9 and, if I remember correctly, Hawking's Illustrated A Brief History of Time where a corridor of short but still tangible distance branches out from normal space.

5) And lastly the most extreme version, like the tesseract in A Wrinkle in Time or the (somewhat mystifying) technology of Dune, where the distance between two widely separate points in space is reduced to zero. Which is what the article currently talks about. (I think I remember that Foundation also had such instantaneous travel, but with a very brief explanation of the technology which may or may not fit here.)

Plenty to write about, but I am still not completely sure if it were best to cover that all under Space folding with links to more detailed articles where they exist, or make it a pure disambig page and fitting the various concepts sometimes called space folding into other articles. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first problem which some folks keep ignoring here is that the majority of reliable sources using this term in academic literature seem to be from the chemistry/physics related to stuff like Folding (chemistry). Which has totally zero in common with the usage in sf literature. The latter - second problem - is inconsistent but more or less a synonym for the concepts of space warp, i.e. warp drive. Which is also related to wormhole travel, and that is not too far from hyperspace. It's all variations on the same 'technobabblish but imaginable way to travel at FTL speeds'. While there seem to be sources that support having separate articles about hyperspace, warp drive and wormholes in fiction, there is still next to zero about space folding, which is a poorly defined synonym for the above. Since space folding and space warping are more or less the same, I still strongly say "redirect". At best, this can be mentioned as a rare, alternate name. If it was something significant, it would be mentioned in one or more of sf encyclopedias, which I've reviewed and which not only don't have a dedicated entry on it, but don't even use the term in passing! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how these variations are not conceptually different. "the majority of reliable sources using this term in academic literature seem to be from the chemistry/physics": So there are more sources using the term than those that we have discussed. That does not seem to me an argument for deletion, but rather that WP:GNG is not the major problem. But yeah, I see, it's the same term applied to different concepts. So it's one more argument for making this a (somewhat extended, as it probably needs sources to make it clear) disambiguation page. That's a solution I would be fine with, as I've described. Daranios (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The fusion of space folding with hyperspace would be Wikipedia:No original research according to the guidelines of Wikipedia. There is no direct connection. Both are simply speculative scientific concepts that are used in science fiction as drive concepts for faster-than-light-movement. --Mark McWire (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are basically four major concepts in science fiction for flying faster than the speed of light:

- A) You change to a fictitious hyperspace / subspace / underspace, in which other physical laws apply, where the speed of light does not represent a natural limit of movement.
- B) You changes the space-time in such a way that the distance between the starting point and the target point becomes smaller, so that the space ship does not have to fly faster than the light. That is the basic principle of folding the space. You can in extreme cases fold the space so that the start and finish are in the same position at the same time and you cover the distance instantaneously. This is the basic principle of most of the so-called jump drives.
- C) You connect two points of space-time through a tunnel and take a shortcut. That's the basic for most fictional wormholes or hyperspace/subspace/transwarp tunnels/corridors/conduits or slipstream drives. This is the only concept that can be merged with hyperspace, since there are actually parallels here.
- D) You build a bubble around the spaceship that is separated from normal space-time, in a kind of own little universe and move this bubble through space. Since the limit of the speed of light only applies to energy and matter, a spaceship can move faster in this way. This is the basic principle that describes the warp drive and similar concepts.

All of these concepts have their right to exist in Wikipedia. --Mark McWire (talk)

IMHO D) is just a mix of A and B. Star Trek's warp drive seems to involve creating a hyperspace-bubble and having it interact with our reality in a weird way, kind of like greasing the wheels to make them roll faster. But traditionally space warp, space fold are related. And for some writers hyperspace just means something that allows warping/folding, fo others it's the pace inside the wormholes, etc. It's all variations of technobabble. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just look at it from a real scientific point of view. Wormholes and warp bubbles are two different possible solutions to the field equations from general relativity. Both concepts exist independently of each other. Space folding is another independent solution, but sometimes referred to wormholes. Hyperspace does not exist in current physics. It is a hypothetical concept that is discussed in real science, but which has no use to solute any theoretical problem. It's a world outside of our universe. That science fiction mixes up these concepts is another problem. The warp drive from Star Trek is not a pure warp bubble concept, as it results from the general theory of relativity. As you said, it's a mixture of subspace (hyperspace) and space warp. When it comes to space folding, things get complicated. It is a concept that exists in real science, namely as a prerequisite for using wormholes. Because without folded space, a wormhole is useless, since the flight through the wormhole would be just as far as the flight through normal space. Only when a wormhole connects two distant points in a folded space-time can it create a shorter path. In science fiction, especially in Star Trek, space folding is treated as a separate entity. Mostly in connection with instant travel methods. While the flight through a wormhole takes finite time, the flight through space folding is timeless. --Mark McWire (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be no problem for me to accept a redirect to Warp drive. Then in the article warp drive it needs its own subsection for space folding and there it is explained that it is a similar concept to space warp, but that it is used differently in the SF. Then we can cite the examples from Star Trek, in which space folding is presented as a physical concept superior to the warp drive that enables instant journeys that are not possible with the warp drive. For example coaxial warp drive and spatial trajector from Series Voyager. --Mark McWire (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I agree, which is why I think redirecting (and possibly adding a section to be mostly written from scratch as I do stand by my view that next to nothing in the current plot summary article has value) to either warp drive or wormholes is superior to hyperspace. Indeed, hyperspace is 100% fiction, whereas warp drive and even more so, wormholes, are grounded in some real sciences. My point is that any discussion of space folding has to go beyond listing a few examples of fictional works that used this term. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article age has nothing to do with it. It could be improved.Super (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With what sources? I did an extensive lit review and concluded there are no in-depth secondary sources on this topic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the non-fictional part, how about with the already mentioned Philosophical Essays p. 46 (+p. 37, footnote 24) and That's Weird! p. 236, and for marrying with the sci-fi concept, The Science of Dune p. 203 (and 199)? (And did I mention I am wondering what's on p. 205 of that source? ;-) Daranios (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first source talks about this concept is science, which is not covered in our article at all. We do, however, have an article about Minkowski space, a related scientific concept that is mentioned by the source; it seems that the author of that book is using the term "space folding" to explain Minkowski space and related concepts. The second study seems the same but less focused on the term, which seems to be used just once in passing. The last source seems more of the same. Space folding, in this case, is a simple grammatical construction, just like space warp/space warping. In the context of space travel, it can be mentioned as a synonym to space warp, or maybe wormholes. We don't need an article that just lists 'works that use the term space folding instead of space warping' when both refer to the same concept. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment Not a fork. Would agree that there needs to be more broad 3rd party coverage of the concept as a whole to supplement specific examples. Artw (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Mark McWire's taxonomy of fictional space travel, but have no particular opinion on how those ought to be best represented in Wikipedia. I appreciate the collaborative spirit here, and suggest if fictional AfDs keep going this way we might want to revisit the WP:PEREN topic of AfDeletion -> AfDiscussion. Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fusion with Space travel in fiction - I suggest to move the actual content to this main article and redirect space folding like slipstream (science fiction) to this main article. I suggest also merge wormholes in fiction with space travel in fiction. --Mark McWire (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I once made a push and converted the article into a disambiguation and moved the former content to Space travel in fiction. There it can then be refined according to the sources. --Mark McWire (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should move the discussion to Talk:Space travel in science fiction‎ and close this topic. If all people are fine with this suggestion. --Mark McWire (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing ?

Can we closing this nomination, since the article now massivly edited and revamped into a disambiguation? --Mark McWire (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Ping Artw, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, Jclemens, Daranios, Super[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, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C.P Sankara Panicker

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

Not notable, one of many freedom fighters from the era. Does not have significant coverage. Mvqr (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs improvement, not deletion. Do not let western centrism effect us.Super (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any source other than the one in the article? I can find some for a similarly named medieval poet, but not for anybody later. Hemanthah (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 13:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 13:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 13:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More consensus required
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 16:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There aren't any quickly verifiable sources apart from the two sentence list entry in a "Who's Who" book. The other two sources are autobiographies of two other freedom fighers. I haven't checked them, but even if they cover the subject at length (highly doubtful since their wiki pages don't list the subject at all), they are almost WP:PRIMARY sources. --Hemanthah (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:09, 17 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Justice League (band)

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND; filtering out Justice League-related results to the best of my ability, I can find no significant coverage of this group or any other indication of notability. (One member went on to play in some notable bands, but that doesn't make this one notable.) Lennart97 (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly keep. I tried doing a WP:BEFORE and their LP was reviewed in Flipside,[8] Maximumrocknroll,[9] Suburban Voice,[10], as well as The Washington Post.[11] On the other hand this seems more bloggy. I was previously able to improve Jerry's Kids (band), but I don't have access to the American Hardcore book right now. Geschichte (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Geschichte: Thanks for digging these up, I failed to find them. I do notice these reviews are all very short, no more than a few sentences each; on top of that, as far as I can see none of them contain any information about the band itself that could be used to create a verifiable band bio. (Do you think the American Hardcore book does?) Lennart97 (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably to a degree, at least they fit within the time frame (the book stops in 1986). Geschichte (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alright, let's hope someone has it and can enlighten us :) Any thoughts on my other points above? Lennart97 (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't find it in my paper 1st ed, however there are tidbits in the 2nd ed. So I don't know. Geschichte (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ah...the straight edge hardcore scene. Never was my cup of a tea (I was on the opposite side of the spectrum lifestyle wise ) but, despite my due diligence, I don't see how the coverage I could find and that others presented significantly covers the subject enough to where I'm convinced they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not even close. No significant coverage anywhere. I appreciate that this was probably a real band that tried real hard to make a mark, but there's no evidence of notability that I found after searching. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:58, 25 December 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quil Lemons

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

I do not see how any of this. shows notability, under WP:creative of any other guideline. The first person to photograph a lead image for Vanity Fa r is not necessarily notable, all the more so the first person of any particular group.

All 3 refs are promotional interviews, where he says what he pleases. The similarities between them indicate the same likely PR source--nothing in any one of them is reliable, let alone for ablp.

One of the refs does refer to an item in a show at MOMA--if he isis the permaenent collection, we would be notable. Perhaps that can be shown. DGG ( talk ) 08:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article contains reliable sources that should not be erroneously classified as promotional, and a Google search turns up many more readily available RSes. Gamaliel (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many reliable sources can be found through Google search such as NYTimes, Philadelphia Inquirer, Vanity Fair, Vogue etc. Article has improvement opportunities. Mommmyy (talk) 20:45, 2 December 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 16:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Locus in quo

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

This page is nothing more than a dictionary definition, and I see no way that it possibly could be anything more than that. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lex loci. There are actually about a half dozen terms like this which are all variations of lex loci or terms relevant to its application, and we would be better off merging all the short ones together. I have now proposed this at Talk:Lex loci. BD2412 T 06:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:23, 26 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) 07:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 9 December 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. Given the nature of this split, and the fact that the now blocked (but non-sock) position was rebutted without response, and lacked any reasoning on why the sources would be sufficient, and both other keeps were weak, a clear Keep would seem unwarranted. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morristown Jewish Center

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

Does not meet GNG. No independent sources. Searching finds some coverage in the local Morristown newspaper and many passing mentions. Overall, just routine coverage. MB 03:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MB 03:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. MB 03:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MB 03:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion: previously PRODded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources - [this one]. --CappellsFromSkelmersdale (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an article about the center with in-depth coverage; it is another passing mention: "the Morristown Jewish Center Beit Yisrael donated to Morristown National Historical Park (NHP) a high chest purported to have John Hancock provenance." MB 15:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This article is light on sources but I think can be brought up to standards. I have added a few sources and will be adding more in the coming days. I think there still could be notability issues through. Jmbranum (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as above, the article just scrapes by with RS, but there seems to be historical importance with the centre. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:35, 15 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lunch Ladies

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

Not seeing significant criticism or review, other than this harvard crimson article and the film's minor award. Doesn't pass GNG or NFILM to me. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There is a little notability here but it doesn't quite seem like enough. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources significant coverage such as reviews in Dread Central, Film Threat and Horror Society (all rs for horror films) as linked in the list here so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has been in many movie festivals and appears on IMDb which makes it notable enough for me. Safyrr 22:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NFILM: The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. Has that happened? And appearing on IMDb does not ensure notability. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC
Alright, for the IMBd thing. But, in the "Awards and nominations" section it lists several Film festivals it appeared in since its release 4 years ago and with each being tied to what looks like legit sources. Should it have more to make it notable? Safyrr 22:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think it's quantity such as length; if it's rescreened in a year or so from now, that's another story. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has three reliable sources reviews irrespective of the awards Atlantic306 (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it should not be deleted it’s because:

Lunch Ladies is distributed all over the world, has more than 120 film reviews and interviews, won 45 awards and was featured on France 24. Distributors included: canal + for French territories, prime video, shorts TV, curtcircuit33 in Barcelona, shotTV in Russia, osorezone in Japan, dark matter TV, Curia TV, Tubi TV, KanopyAmirv60~fawiki (talk) 10:50, 22 December 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. Nothing presented convinces me this subject merits inclusion. Passing mention or PR-y type announcements don't meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG..

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justus (musician)

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

Fails W:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He was Dr. Dre's "latest project" in 2015. Since then, ... Clarityfiend (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Binksternet (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of coverage, see this, this, this, this, this, this... Giant Snowman 19:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All introducing Dr. Dre's new protege, all but one dated January 2015 (the renegade is from September 2015). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've obviously missed the one from October 2020... Giant Snowman 09:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the one titled "JUSTUS: The White Dr. Dre Protege You've Never Heard Of". Doesn't exactly scream notability, does it? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are promotional announcements and public relations fkuff. They are not descriptions of musical projects that are completed. The guy had a brief moment of media hype but has not produced anything worthy of notice. No music releases. Fails WP:MUSICBIO for sure, and WP:GNG is stretched very thin with these insubstantial source articles talking about future work that never panned out. Binksternet (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage is nothing but PR hype. Nothing substantive to warrant a BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:11, 23 December 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) 04:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Green Store, Arkansas

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

I can find basically nothing about this place - nothing useful in newspapers.com, Google books that I could find, google search is pretty much just autogenerated crap scraped from GNIS, and there's no evidence that WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG is met. Hog Farm _Talk 05:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to just be an intersection in a larger surrounding city. I found no historical information on it.Super (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of significant coverage sufficient to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 16:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It literally is/was just a store. FOARP (talk) 19:37, 2 December 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 NISA Nation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deportivo Lake Mary

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

No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG. JBchrch talk 05:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 05:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 05:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 05:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 05:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SemiProfessional leagues are not notable. dashiellx (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dashiellx: this is a club, not a league - and anyway your statement is factually incorrect. Giant Snowman 19:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: - In my brevity I was not clear. I do not believe teams that play in semi-professional leagues are notable only when relying upon one section of WP:NFOOTY exclusively. I should have been more clear. Perhaps next time instead of leaving a passive aggressive comment you can link to a policy, etc... showing how I'm misunderstanding notability and/or WP:NFOOTY. dashiellx (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NISA Nation, no evidence of separate notability. Giant Snowman 19:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NISA Nation, as per above. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NISA Nation. Based on WP:FOOTYN#Club notability and present sources I think a redirect makes the most sense. If they manage to make it into the US Open Cup, that would be a different story. Jay eyem (talk) 05:41, 3 December 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) 04:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick, Washington

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

A station on a now-abandoned SP&S rail line, and in this case I was fortunate enough to find two older maps, one from 1913 and the other from 1936, which make it clear that there was never a town here, a view ratified by later aerials and topos. There's just no notability here. Mangoe (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Delete There appears to be enough for an article to exist. It was a community with enough importance for a railroad stop and a post office. The article does need improvements. Super (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it worked. Stations without towns were common (and in a sense are even more so now). Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that there's no concept of "importance" in our notability guidelines. WP:GEOLAND requires either legal recognition or significant coverage to meet GNG. Which of those criteria is this !vote based on? –dlthewave ☎ 15:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While WP:NOT does not apply here because towns get articles anyway, don't they, this probably doesn't need to be an AfD? --CappellsFromSkelmersdale (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Editor blocked for disruption. –dlthewave ☎ 16:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "towns get articles anyway"? –dlthewave ☎ 14:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GEOLAND which requires either legal recognition or GNG-level SIGCOV. –dlthewave ☎ 16:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNIS spam. Not a WP:GNG pass, no legal recognition. Post offices do not confer legal recognition - they can be mobile, they can be in stores, they can be in stations, they need not be within a community. This idea that Wikipedia hosts articles on places that literally no encyclopaedic article can be written about needs to die: Wikipedia is not a gazetteer and does not just include directory listings as articles. FOARP (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for the info User:FOARPon post offices. I thought they had to be based in a city or town. Super (talk) 21:29, 2 December 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. Per consensus. Except for nominator, all respondents indicate reasons to keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loved (film)

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

Non-notable indie movie from 1997. Fails WP:NFILM on all counts. No references. Fred Zepelin (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of the players in enough on its on. It was a fairly popular movie being reviewed by notable sources. Loved Movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercopone (talk • contribs)

Incorrect on all counts. The notability of the players is not enough, per Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED. There weren't notable "sources" reviewing it - there was one notable source, Variety. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The film was nominated for four Independent Spirit Awards including Best Feature. I will try to improve the article during the AfD period. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFILM specifies that a film that fails the other criteria has to win a "major" award. Debatable whether the ISAs are "major" (I doubt it) but it any case, it didn't win. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in addition to the award nominations, there is a French review at [12] DonaldD23 talk to me 12:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reviews as well as this, this and this short one. Geschichte (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a confirmed (and reportedly admitted) hoax. RL0919 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Henry Farrow

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

Hoax article according to admission on Twitter by supposed creator. No reliable sources found. The first source to the Durham book is a real book but a Google Book search inside has no results for "Farrow" or "synesthesia". The second source The Lower Canada Journal of Medicine appears to be a bogus non-existent journal? A full-text search of Internet Archive finds nothing for a William Henry Farrow of this type.

If this is determined to be a hoax, it would be the third oldest hoax in Wikipedia history at 15 years and > 11 months. -- GreenC 04:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and list here. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Hold on a minute~~Delete Now that I think about it, shouldn't keep even if it isn't a hoax. Better to have this referred to in the synesthesia article, which already has a bit about the history of recognizing the syndrome. Would like to see pages 374-376 of that book. The article's originator, User:Babynator, wrote a passage on John Lambton, 1st Earl of Durham (ID 97193681) reading "It was during Durham's trip to the Canadas aboard the Hastings that he experienced one of the first recorded cases of synesthesia. The observations were made by a friend of Durham's, Dr. William Henry Farrow, who was a young doctor traveling to the Canadas on Durham's invitation[1]." and searching the book shows that the trip is described on page 375, so it is not implausible that there is something there. However, I can't find any reference to "doctor" in that section, nor "synaesthesia" anywhere. At the time of that trip, the term synesthesia would not have been used anyway. The reference to synesthesia has been removed from Lambton's Wikipedia page since, but persists on the Spanish version of the article.

I've requested a copy of the book through my library. May take a couple of weeks to get it. Getting my hands on the book would make this an open and shut case, one way or another. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 05:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An abridged copy and full copy is online with 'search inside'. As a test search for "Durham", it will not show all results but does say how many results (87). The words "farrow" or "synesthesia" have 0 results. Search on "375" shows it to be the first page of a chapter (in the TOC), but the citation is for "374–376" meaning it crosses a chapter boundary which is very odd. You might say 374 is a blank page, but it's not, there is content there according to the index when searching on "374". So we have a citation that includes the last page of a chapter the first two pages of the next chapter. -- GreenC 16:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I hadn't seen the reference to the tweet. I'm still interested in getting the book, but as I said in my amended comment, this page shouldn't exist, even if it weren't a hoax. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's see if more information can be provided by rsjaffe before deletion occurs. Super (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would that single book even qualify as meeting WP:GNG? I guess being the first person (or one of the first people) to ever describe synesthesia could potentially qualify for criterion 2 of WP:ANYBIO and so would make WP:GNG unnecessary, but we would at least need a source confirming that this is actually true. Mlb96 (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but perhaps it relates to this person and article started from scratch? --CappellsFromSkelmersdale (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked CappellsFromSkelmersdale as NOTHERE. Fences&Windows 15:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. The article creator, André Babyn, has admitted the hoax on Twitter as noted by the nominator. His first edit as Babynator set the tone for his brief history of contributions. On the specifics of the article, the journal Lower Canada Journal of Medicine never existed and no article by that title is in literature databases. Farrow's existence is not verifiable and there is no need to wait for rsjaffe's book to arrive - if he existed then he would surely appear somewhere else in the historical record and this is an admitted hoax with information that is assuredly false. I don't understand why CappellsFromSkelmersdale thinks finding a photo of a British WWI captain by another similar name means we should keep an article about a supposed doctor who died well before that war began. Trying to pretend we were not duped makes us look even sillier. Fences&Windows 14:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Clear hoax. Due to longevity, should be noted somewhere but there's no reason to keep an article here. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The twitter account claiming to be the original author says it is a hoax. It's clear that no other references to the subject person exist. It's clear that the original author fabricated the existence of a journal cited in the article. The twitter account claims that the book reference is also fabricated. We could wait, but it seems extremely unlikely. And even if the book turns up, why are there no other references? I would probably still vote delete. Chris vLS (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and send to the hoax museum. Per all above. wizzito | say hello! 23:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely a hoax.VirenRaval89 (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed hoax Got my hands on the book. No mention of synesthesia or Farrow. Lord Durham did suffer from severe "attacks in the head", which sound like migraines, and one was described in the referred pages, but definitely no synesthesia. Since there was a reference in the hoax, I thought it best to check that reference before listing this as a hoax. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well sorry you went through all that trouble but glad you went the extra mile to verify the third oldest hoax. If the twitter user had a waited just a few more months to reveal, they could have claimed a gold medal for oldest hoax in history. -- GreenC 19:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not sorry. I felt like checking it because 1) I was curious, 2) wikipedia tends to be "blind" to written sources, as opposed to on-line sources, so I thought it was appropriate to read it, and 3) before enshrining something as a hoax, I felt it was appropriate to make sure we weren't being fooled by a hoax hoax, as improbable as that may seem. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A hoax-hoax, the mind reels. Hopefully we don't start seeing those. -- GreenC 20:15, 8 December 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 04:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Health Film Festival

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

could not find any coverage for its English or French name. The festival website www.imagesante.org seems dead and just links to advertising. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment https://www.imagesante.be/fr (with a .be domain, and translation from French required; no en site available) is their current website. They seem to use the full title of " International Health Film Festival of Liège" to differentiate from the "Global Health Film Festival", though I will say I can't make an WP:N call on this based on that alone. Nate • (chatter) 04:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into Liège#Culture for a lack of content, sources, and prominence. I considered a highly selective merge as well, just did not find any text or sources in International Health Film Festival that are missing in the parent article. This may be a discontinued or pandemic-halted event. By itself that is not a problem. Issue is that for a lack of notability the media does not seem to care. Then why should we? gidonb (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable film festival. I'm not even sure there's enough reliable sourcing to include it on the Liège#Culture article; seems to not exist anymore and was never notable. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:21, 15 December 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) 04:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Coal Mine, Texas

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

Both sources used are unreliable. It's a bit hard to look for because the article isn't clear if it's in Jeff Davis on Bandera County, and it doesn't seem to have a GNIS entry. Newspapers.com is just giving me results for coal mines in China, and searching in other locations doesn't bring up anything that indicates that this meets WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Talk 04:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to place that attracts people who explore these things. Let's see if more information can be found and the article improved. Super (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only sources for this are blogs and or user-submitted websites, which can't even really agree on where this is supposed to be. No joy with Google or my university database. Fails notability. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ghost towns can be notable if they had legal recognition or significant coverage in the past, but this one had neither. It's not even clear that there was a "town" of any sort here. –dlthewave ☎ 16:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with dlthewave. This really is just a result of the practise on Wikipedia of labelling every location that you have a source saying was once a "populated place" that is obviously not populated now a "ghost town". The ghosttowns.com source, which is not reliable since it is user-generated content, notably doesn't say it was ever actually a community of any sort - from the description it is an abandoned, completely un-notable mine.

This tendency to label all these places "ghost towns" has led to counties, particularly in California (e.g., Nevada county), which there are more "ghost town" articles for on Wikipedia than there are articles for inhabited locations. A quick review shows nearly all of these were likely mines, camps, fords, bridges, farms, ranches, stations etc. etc. etc.

In reality, even in places that saw a gold rush or whatever, there should not be more than a few "ghost town" articles for each US county since very few places with legal recognition totally disappeared, and the ones that weren't legally recognised rarely pass WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per FOARP and Dlthewave. Jobie James (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FOARP. ~Junedude433 (talk) 04:09, 8 December 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 Scandinavian Australians. The merges have it. I think this is for the best due to the size, scope and sourcing. Also WP:ATD.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic Australians

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

as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugandan Australians and other similar AfDs. Also fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage of the topic. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. There are several articles in Icelandic newspapers about the emigration of Icelandic people to Australia and of Icelandic Australians. I added a few to the article. Alvaldi (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Scandinavian Australians per WP:PRESERVEing Alvaldi's sources, but real significance as to warrant a standalone topic has not been demonstrated. Scandinavian Australians should also be renamed to Nordic Australians since that's what the article is actually about. Geschichte (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, there are about 980 Icelandic Australians in total, which is a tiny amount. But, there are also only roughly 300 000 Icelanders. So, from an Icelandic perspective this article could be notable. The article also has good sources. However, since the article is short and will likely never be larger, I support merging with the Scandinavian Australian page. Safyrr 22:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:52, 16 December 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 majority of the sourcing I'm seeing is either (1) event announcements or (2) press releases copied into various questionable sources. For me, this fails WP:NFILM at this point.

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qasida of dhaka

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

Non-notable short documentary by non-notable director. The only sources available are press release-driven announcements of it being trotted around to mostly non-notable festivals. The only award won was at one such non-notable festival, so not a major award. WP:MOSFILM advises mentioning only festival screenings that are noteworthy, and not listing non-notable awards because of the proliferation of film festivals and "award mills".

Article was speedily recreated by a single-purpose account after the first deletion discussion ended in soft delete due to minimal participation. Does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Potential Delete The better question here is how legit the Indus Valley FF is? If it is legit and reconized in the industry then that would change things.Super (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharif Hossain Asif, Minkal, আফতাবুজ্জামান, and MdsShakil: Pinging as interested parties: article author and all participants in prior discussions of the short and director, in the hope of attracting a quorum and generating discussion. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Qasida is historically important for Dhaka, and this film was about it. I think those reference and coverage are enough to pass GNG or WP:NFP. —MdsShakil (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:48, 17 December 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 03:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Central African Republic–Turkey relations

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

Fails WP:GNG. No state visits, embassies nor agreements. Trade is miniscule at less than USD6 million a year. The fact that Turkey donated some computers says little of notable relations. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:48, 2 December 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 Revert to page on BBC series since no one else wants to do the legwork. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Science

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

Page is a total mess. It refers to two different unrelated shows of the same name, neither of which seems notable on its own per Wikipedia:Notability (television). At some point it also got hijacked to be about the concept of fake science in the media. Suggest some WP:TNT here if any of this is to be kept. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a lack of reliable sources cited. Further, some specifics are incoherent to the main topic of the subject. Multi7001 (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but decide what the article is supposed to be about. We have three different things here: two television series' and a concept. All three might be independently notable, and the current article contains some useable material on two of them. AfD deletion is supposed to be for things where there is no salvageable content, or no notability. On the subject of "Hollywood science" in the sense of science perverted for film effect, there are several books on exactly that subject, for example Sidney Perkowitz "Hollywood Science: Movies, Science, and the end of the world" [13]. The subject is almost certainly notable and riddled with reliable sources. Meanwhile the BBC series has been selected by the Open University as the subject of a free learning resource [14] which is an independent indication of notability, and very in-depth, and the royal society of chemistry (RSC) held a lecture about the series [15], again independent and in-depth. Google is your friend. It's not hard to find sources for these. I haven't gone on to try the National Geographic series, so I'm not commenting on that one. Elemimele (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with others. Lets sort it all out.Super (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert to solely about the BBC/OU series. If the Nat Geographic series can be shown to be independently notable then that should be a separate page. On the other hand, if this AfD fails to keep as is, then repurpose to a broad concept article since that is unarguably notable. SpinningSpark 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele: @Supercopone: @Spinningspark: So are any of you going to do the heavy lifting? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 are valid sourcing concerns, but there also appears to be consensus that those concerns have been addressed, at least as far as being BLP sufficient. While there are concerns about improving the article, there is a consensus that the subject is notable and issues can be addressed editorially. Star Mississippi 17:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ove von Spaeth

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

Apparently recreated after the first deletion. All of the references are simply works by the author; I can't find any reliable sources with significant coverage about the subject. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as WP:G4. If it does not qualify, my !vote would be a garden-variety Delete based on this nom and previous discussion. LizardJr8 (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fit G4, since the current version was started from scratch, rather than being reposted. Geschichte (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the major contributor to this article. I don't understand why you can't find reliable sources. A lot of the sources are referenced from major Danish printed newspapers. Jyllands-Posten, Kristeligt Dagblad Berlingske Tidende ect. I know it can be hard to find the articles, since we talk about print media from the early 2000. but infomedia.dk can help you (though it is behind a paywall) aza (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm leaning keep, since I can confirm that the news outlets mentioned by Aza are reliable. If they indeed covered Spaeth's work, the article topic is viable. However, it

1) ditch the title "independent scholar"

2) chuck out all primary sources (use it to make a Selected bibliography section instead).

3) rewrite to focus on the reception. What do they write about Spaeth? No anonymous critics please, state the outlet they wrote for and how they assessed his work. Summarize in the lead which one of his books caused a media ruckus.

4) also focus on sources that are about Ove von Spaeth. Geschichte (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Aza, do you have a reaction? Geschichte (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than enough sources for a keep. Not sure what is going on with the request for deletion. It could stand some work but I see nothing here to warrant anything drastic.Super (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Suffiently reviewed in mainstream media at the time, assuming good faith toward offline sources. Geschichte (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - adequately sourced. Ingratis (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Geschichte, it sounds reasonable, when I started the article back in the day I had full access to the infomedia database through my university, I don't have that anymore, so it would be a hard task for me to rewrite, try taking a look at the early version I made and see if it is more in line with Wikipedia's standards. It seems the deletion request originates from some annoyance over edits made by IP 176.23.240.36 aza (talk)

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

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

The result was no consensus. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chipokota Mwanawasa

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

Apart from being daughter to Zambian third President, I don’t see any sign of notability per WP:GNG to warrant a standalone article Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 17:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 17:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lawyer/farmer, smells about the same. Nothing notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider striking smells about the same - this is a living human being worthy of being discussed in a dignified manner, whether or not she is notable. Netherzone (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Being the daughter of a former president isn't inherently notable, but it certainly hints at likely notability. She's also Special Assistant for Public Policy to the current president (or perhaps not). pburka (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Do Not Delete..Chipokota is actually an advisor to the Zambian president and, when she was appointed, she was the first woman advisor since 2002. She travelled with the Zambian president for a number of meetings in Europe and was covered by a lot of media houses. Content from countries like Zambia is always shot down. Notability should not be set at standards of say the USA alone. In Zambia she is very notable and that should be good reason to keep her here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwanaapeluke (talk • contribs)
Keep Notable, but another example of Wikipedia lacking consensus on reliable sources from that part of the world, leading to a systematic bias in determining notability. LondonIP (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in short, it's Too Soon, and there isn't enough reliable coverage. Basically the entirety of the article is her educational resume. The in-passing mentions of her in sources about her father don't make her notable. The article linked by pburka casts doubt that she was recently appointed to anything, and simply being a vague "advisor" may not be enough for notability. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We'll keep any article talking about a thrice-removed/12th cousin of a POTUS or UK Prime Minister whose only notability was shouting 'do you know who my cousin is?' during an arrest, but this article about a presidential daughter from Africa is not enough? The resume tone needs reduction, but once again, this is the English world Wikipedia, not just one for the 'acceptable' Western world. Nate • (chatter) 04:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems obvious at this point. She has held key government posts.Plus her father was a former president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercopone (talk • contribs) 06:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has held key government posts so meets WP:BIO on that criteria. --CappellsFromSkelmersdale (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only government post that I can see is as special advisor to the President (her father). The post itself is not notable; there's a vast difference in notability of being advisor to the leader of a geo-strategically significant country with 300+ million people versus that of one of 18 million which even in subregional terms (Eastern/Southern Africa) is of middling importance when compared with South Africa, Kenya, Zim or Mozambique. Other than the pieces on the appointment/non-appointment (which in themselves do not constitute notability), the reliability of the sourcing is borderline and all are mere mentions (blogspot sourcing is certainly unreliable). There's no in-depth coverage, or passing (rather than mentions) coverage across multiple reliable sources to satisfy a generous interpretation of WP:BASIC. Searches turn up very little. In terms of commentary regarding systemic bias - if we are talking of people and issues related to the 20th Century and earlier, this is certainly more of a case in terms of online sources. But we are talking of a contemporary figure; the notion that African media reporting *today* is in the same condition as last century or even a decade ago, is utterly mistaken. I can accept in certain pockets (eg CAR, DRC, South Sudan) there are clear contemporary gaps, but Zambia is far from those circumstances. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems kinda notable and has some sort of internet coverage that I could find. HelpingWorld (talk) 20:57, 12 December 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. Somewhere between keep and a no consensus, to be fully open. There is merit behind the keep and merge opinions, cited in policy. Which of those comes out ahead is slightly unclear, but that can be handled editorially. I imagine a possible merger and if so, how much, may change as we get further from this game, but there definitely is not a consensus to delete the content. Star Mississippi 19:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Tampa Bay Buccaneers–New England Patriots game

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT as it's not the final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league, it isn't a college bowl game, it's not an all-star game, and it is not a game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable. Most coverage is routine and mentions of it being Tom Brady's return to New England before the game. A month and a half later, it doesn't seem to satisfy WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Rockchalk7 17 22:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rockchalk7 17 22:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Rockchalk7 17 22:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this is just a one-off game that does not meet SPORTSEVENT. It can be sufficiently covered at 2021 New England Patriots season, 2021 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season, Tom Brady, and any other relevant articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find this deletion rationale weak since it hinges on WP:ROUTINE. The widespread coverage beforehand is just as valid, and we all know notability is not temporary. As to continued coverage, notable games like this often don't receive continued coverage until the end of the season (see the AfD for Hail Murray). You would be challenged to find any game where that's the case from week to week because of the nature of sports reporting. Simply put, this game was impactful. It was a highly-anticipated return for Brady, promoted specifically by its broadcast company (not every game gets this), Brady became the all-time passing yardage leader and joined the 32 Team Club during the game, not to mention it was the second-most viewed SNF game ever. The article's sourcing is quite good and includes multiple national sources (a key indicator of notability, even ROUTINE says this). So, to say it should be deleted based on weak rationale like ROUTINE and CONTINUEDCOVERAGE just doesn't make sense to me. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spike the ball and do a choreographed dance per nom lest we be infested with routine NFL games every damn season. The Patriots aren't that special (though they are coming on now). "The Return" gained absolutely no traction as a catchphrase (fumble instead). It's already in the rearview mirror. As for it being the second-most viewed SNF game ever, do the first and third have articles? Also, Brady sets new records every other game. This isn't Bradypedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear pass of WP:SPORTSEVENT significant non-routine coverage leading up to the game and in its aftermath, particularly with Tom Brady setting the career passing yards record and his postgame interaction with his former head coach Bill Belichick. Easily among the most notable regular season games over the last several years. Frank Anchor 01:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you might want to look at WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The majority of articles about it were from the week leading up to the game, and a few immediately after the game, but there hasn't been very much continued coverage about it since indicating (using that policy's words) a "spike in coverage". If Wikipedia existed when Joe Montana returned to San Francisco when he played for the Chiefs, that probably wouldn't qualify for an article either. This seems pretty similar to when Brett Favre returned to Green Bay or when Peyton Manning returned to Indianapolis, lots of build up the week or two leading up then the game was largely forgotten by history. And I have to pretty strongly disagree about it being "among the most notable regular season games over the last several years". Outside of Tom Brady, there wasn't very much notable about it. In regards to the record comment, records are broken and tied more often than most people realize. Hell, Patrick Mahomes tied (another) record Sunday night and there wasn't much coverage about it, now I'll admit career passing yards is more notable then things like "fastest to (milestone)" "most (stat) after ___ career games". The 2018 Rams/Chiefs game is by a large margin the most notable regular season game recently and look at everything about that game.--Rockchalk7 17 02:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE states "coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established." There was also clearly more than a short "burst" of a few days of coverage, as evidenced by this game headlining the schedule release in May, and the highly publicized Adele promo released more than a full week before the game took place. Frank Anchor 13:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per Etzedek24 and Frank Anchor's comments (maybe not for the records being broken), but mostly for the game's strong ties to the Brady–Belichick era of New England Patriots history, which is considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest, dynasties in sports. I'd also suggest merging to the Brady/Belichick page, but as mentioned before, there is plenty of coverage for the game and its circumstances, which I think would be too much for a merged article to contain, especially for one game. --WuTang94 (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I do think that Brady's return is significant given the magnitude of playing against his former coach and team, as they carved a huge place in sport's history when together. I also think that such a matchup likely will not happen again, unlike Favre or Manning as mentioned by Rockchalk717. But in the likelihood of this page getting deleted, I have moved some of the significant copy surrounding the game (and not the game itself) to the Brady–Belichick era page. --Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, maybe the merge target should be 2021 New England Patriots season instead. Either one of the teams' seasons is probably more capable of taking on this page's content than the Brady/Belichick page, and the game meant more to the Pats than the Bucs. I still think this page merits keeping though. --WuTang94 (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on Frank Anchor's argument. His statement that WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE dictates that coverage does not need to be ongoing, is enough here, considering this game got significant coverage that isn't routine even for the biggest regular season games, especially beforehand. I don't typically think particular games should get their own article, especially regular season, but I think this one meets proper criteria. Spf121188 (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the amount of coverage this particular game received. -- Mike 🗩 17:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this marked Brady beating all 32 teams, he is not the first QB to do so, and the game was not memorable for anything else in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:300:146B:6165:92A0:DA22:CB36 (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC) — 2601:647:300:146B:6165:92A0:DA22:CB36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would re-read the article and many of the above comments. There are clearly other things this game was notable for. That is all.--WuTang94 (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People still talk about The Catch or the Miracle in Motown. Does anybody, less than two month later, fondly reminisce about "the Return"? There's no WP:LASTING coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really thought initially to vote delete, but reading the article, it's very well written (likely GA-level or better) and sources clearly covered this event in enough detail to pass WP:GNG. --Jayron 32 16:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and selective Merge to Brady-Belichick era#2021–present: Brady vs. Belichick and beyond. There's certainly coverage about the game, routine or not. However, keeping it as a stand alone article in my opinion fails WP:10YEARTEST as almost all the coverage centers around the drama of Brady and Belichick rather than the game itself. Unlike other recent notable games like the Hail Murray and the 2018 Kansas City Chiefs–Los Angeles Rams game, the coverage about the game had little to do with what happened on the field, and everything to do with the Brady-Belichick relationship. That's why I think readers would be better served having this game covered in the article about the Brady-Belichick era, giving it WP:DUEWEIGHT in the context of that article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Muboshgu. Cbl62 (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge per Qwaiiplayer. The coverage of the game centers around the "return" of Brady and the Brady-Belichick relationship. Natg 19 (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on 2nd thought, most relevant information is already at the merge target, so delete and redirect. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted notice at WikiProject National Football League. Natg 19 (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. I was a bit unsure about this one before I read through the arguments presented in favor of each option, but I'm now satisfied that this article passes WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, because of the game receiving a much greater amount of coverage than most NFL games from the moment that the schedule was announced, in addition to the records that were broken by Brady as a result of it. --Zander251 (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do folks think about redirect? (And even merging anything of use)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Received coverage well beyond that of a normal football game. Satisfies WP:SPORTSEVENT. Mlb96 (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all relevant information (Brady-Belichek) is already on their respective articles. No reason to have a bunch of other cruft filling out the rest of this article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in response to the relisting comment on redirect/merge, this is not an appropriate outcome as there is clearly enough WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG per my above “keep” vote and others, and “2021 Tampa Bay Buccaneers - New England Patriots Game” is an unlikely search term. Frank Anchor 16:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable game for various reasons, well-cited, and well written. GNG passed and the article is a potential GA or even FA candidate. DrewieStewie (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to Brady–Belichick era. The notability of the topic itself is not the game that was played, as implied by the title of this article, but the legacy of these two men. This topic is already covered in-depth in Brady–Belichick era. This is just another footnote in a long history. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per discussion, especially Frank Anchor's comments. And, of course, Brady. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, merge/redirect to Brady–Belichick era per Gonzo_fan2007, Dissident93, Natg 19, and Qwaiiplayer. Game is only notable for its relation to the men featured in proposed target article. In 10 years, their championships together will far outWEIGH a single game played as opponents. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 12:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should have been closed as Keep by Missvain without this relisting, per comments before the relist. Please have another reading of everyone's comments and reasoning, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And no, the page is relevant beyond Belichick and really has little to do with him. It's about Brady and his return to play his former team (and, importantly, his former owner Robert Kraft, whose decisions were relevant in Brady leaving the Patriots) and what he accomplished while doing so. It's not about what Brady accomplished while quarterbacking the Patriots, but about the game, the fans, and the overall drama resulting in the "second most-watched broadcast of NBC Sunday Night Football in its history". Belichick is New Engand's coach and not a rival to Brady, and he is more or less tangential to the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is only the second relisting. Many AfDs are relisted multiple times, especially in close calls such as this. I don't need to be told to read anything for a third time, thanks. And based on your recent edits, I must ask you to stop replying to me in order to make a WP:POINT about closers reading discussions. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 14:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my apology, my comment was more for Missvain than you, this seems an obvious Keep from early on and could use a close reading from the closer. p.s. the last sentence of Dan's ghost was added after this comment. My answer to you above was also meant for you and for other editors who want to make an inappropriate-target merge. This is not a topic about Brady and Belichick, although they both were active participants in the game (as were many others). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd to say it's obvious when the discretion is on the closing admin. There are legit points presented here with the discussion for either keeping the article or/and merging. – The Grid (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking the closer to read through the page, and I think the discussion in this relist can add to the case for Keep. Mainly, the premise of the suggested redirect doesn't apply to this article other than for a brief mention and a link to the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is for the closing admin to decide. Nothing more. Nothing less. – The Grid (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I'm asking the closer to actually read the page and understand its discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just want to reiterate the whole naming discussion and notability. The game that was played was not notable, i.e. the actions that occurred during the game did not make it notable, like Fail Mary, Bottlegate and 2018 NFC Championship Game. Being the 2nd most viewed SNF game or Brady setting some random record does not make the game notable. Looking at the article's current name, 2021 Tampa Bay Buccaneers–New England Patriots game, the implication is the topic of the article is the game, i.e. the events that occurred during the game. However, looking closely at the sources, the topic that is notable is Brady and Belichick's history, legacies, and now rivalry. Looking at it from this perspective, Brady–Belichick era already covers this topic. This game becomes part of this topic, with the most appropriate outcome being a new section in Brady–Belichick era covering Brady and Belichick's interactions after Brady left the Patriots, which includes this game. So again, this game is notable and should be included in Wikipedia, but the topic is already covered by an existing article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this article was previously titled "Tom Brady's return" before being moved to its current title. On one hand, I feel that that title was actually a better title to indicate why this game is notable, but on the other hand, as pointed out by those who supported the move, it's a bit of an ambigious title that could be confused with other "returns" that Brady has made throughout his career, such as his 2009 return from his torn ACL or his 2016 return from his Deflategate suspension. So if this article is kept (as I have already voted for it to be), maybe there should be a new discussion about a title that better demonstrates the game's notability than just having the title be the year and the teams involved in the game, but it might have to be something a little more specific than "Tom Brady's return." --Zander251 (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (coming in riding the surf of an edit conflict) Yes, the game is notable, per 32 good sources which cover Tom Brady in relationship to this game. Brady's focus was not on any kind of rivalry with Belicheck, even if some but not all of the press played it up. A merge to the Brady-Belicheck page would be inaccurate. A mention and a link there is fine, but this article is about a noteworthy game. And the "random record" Brady achieved during the game was for the most passing yards in a career (as notable a football record as you can get, tied). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree that the 32 references show notability for the game itself, compared to the circumstances around the game. When I look at the title of these refs, 9 of them are about Tom Brady's time with the Buccaneers or the aftermath of his leaving (e.g. "Tom Brady officially signs contract with Buccaneers", "Patriots eliminated from postseason contention for first time since 2008"). Many other refs are about the circumstances of the "return" or about the ratings (e.g. "Watch chilling moment as Patriots crowd roars for Tom Brady's return", "Tom Brady's return was the second most-watched 'Sunday Night Football' game ever on NBC"). An argument could be made that the game itself was notable for Brady becoming the NFL all-time passing leader, but we don't have an article on the game where Brees broke the previous record. There is no doubt that this article is well sourced, but this game was notable because of "The Return", which can be summarized and covered at the Brady-Belichick article. Natg 19 (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The "circumstances around the game" are part of the article about the game (the page doesn't have to be about the 60 minutes on-field play). The game is not about Brady and Belichick, not discernible rivals, and a merge to that page would be a mismerge per topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Zander251's theory that the page is misnamed seems to get to the heart of the differing opinions here. The page is a prominent Tom Brady page and not a page about Brady and Belicheck, and should be renamed accordingly. Makes sense. This is a well sourced page about a notable game which, by coincidence, contains Brady obtaining a notable record, which should tip a Keep. Just could be the title has to describe it better. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just to be clear, the naming doesn't matter. The topic is what matters. The topic is notable, it's just that the topic is already sufficiently covered by another article. The argument I am making is that the topic that is notable is the relationship between Brady and Belichick, not the game that was actually played. The game should definitely be noted, but as part of the larger topic on the Brady–Belichick era. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Brady-Belichick era ended in 2019 and is defined in the first sentence of the Brady-Belichick era. This game was played in 2021, and has nothing whatsoever to do with their mutually shared success (which is what their article is about but. again, not what this one covers). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a footnote (or a postscript) to the Brady-Belichick era. If it weren't for the extraordinary success of the B-B era, nobody would care about this game. The notability of this game flows directly and exclusively from the former. Cbl62 (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should have a note, or maybe a 'See also' entrant, but that page is about something that ended, per the page lead sentence, in 2019. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how you can say that this game has nothing whatsoever to do with their mutually shared success. If not for the mutual connection between Brady and Belichick, this would just be a run of the mill regular season game, and this article would be speedily deleted and we would not be having this discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I hate Tom Brady like any self-respecting fan, but there were just too many story lines, records, and viewership numbers with this specific game. It could easily overburden any single article about Brady or the franchises, and since Wikipedia is not constrained like a paper encyclopedia, the sources give it the notability needed to give the subject its own little corner of the internet. Ignoring notability (which is proven), it transcends a stub and people looking to rescue articles should pay more attention to the effort given here.Outdatedpizza (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article passes WP:GNG and this article is notable enough to rise above WP:NSPORT concerns. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 02:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- For the nom's argument: theres an article here [16] that shows that the match is still in people's heads. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 03:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a game that was not really big like the Butt Fumble, the Tuck Rule Game, or the Beast Quake so I would recommend to delete this page. SoonerFan4life67 talk 0:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Just because you claim that this event isn’t as “big” as other games, that doesn’t make it so. As is the case of the other games you mentioned, there is significant non-routine coverage of this contest to warrant an article.Frank Anchor 01:57, 9 December 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 Kennewick, Washington. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vista, Washington

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

Another case where actually reading the sources would have given a different article. Once again, the Washington Place Names database calls this a "railroad station", and yes, going back through the topos and aerials shows an isolated siding and a grain elevator, which still stands in the middle of the urban sprawl that has surrounded it. It's been closed for something two decades, and is now bedecked with cell phone antennae. It's not even clear that anyone considers this a neighborhood in the city. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just another railroad station, no sign of a settlement that would be legally recognized or meet GNG per WP:GEOLAND. The bit about the artesian well is a red flag: If this was a town, surely there would be mention of the water going to homes instead of just farmers and locomotives. –dlthewave ☎ 04:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kennewick, Washington since there is some history there. Not enough for its own article though. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with others. It should point to Kennewick, Washington. Super (talk) 13:22, 2 December 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. JoelleJay's interpretation of GNG is spot-on per sitewide consensus, and is sufficiently supported in this discussion. Daniel (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Dias (mixed martial artist)

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

Fails WP:MMABIO criteria as he has only one fight in a top tier promotion. Also fails WP:GNG as her fight coverage is mainly through routine sports report. HeinzMaster (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He passes WP:MMABIO as he fought in the WEC three times and Bellator once. 4 top tier fights is enough to pass. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 21:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~Keep~~ Delete He does have four top tier fights, so he meets the criteria at WP:NMMA, though it would make things easier if he'd won more than one of them. I said my vote was weak because of the lack of significant coverage I saw on him. What I saw was just routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I usually defer to the SNG, but based on JoelleJay's original comment, I went searching for more info. Rafael Dias is not an uncommon name, but I focused on MMA fighters and was not able to find sources that I believe show WP:GNG is met. That is why I changed my vote. Papaursa (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. NMMA doesn't matter if there isn't GNG sourcing. Can someone provide the three best IRS SIGCOV articles on him? JoelleJay (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A news search turned up nothing substantive, just routine match accounts and results. MMA is subordinate to GNG so his meeting the former is irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense, by your logic we might aswell go and deleted hundreds of pages that meet WP:MMANOT but don't meet WP:GNG, because there are alot that don't. Why even create specific guidelines for MMA fighters if they don't mean anything? ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 09:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...Yes, we should delete all the MMA articles that don't meet GNG. MMANOT, like all NSPORT guidelines, is intended to predict whether an article will meet GNG*, it does not directly confer notability. It allows editors to create articles based on database refs that confirm a subject meets a sport-specific guideline (and therefore is predicted to meet GNG) without having to demonstrate notability (through SIGCOV refs) from the get-go like other articles do; but once an article is challenged editors must prove the subject actually does meet GNG.

*The very first sentence of NSPORT is This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. See also the first section of NSPORT: ...the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. And the FAQs collapsed at the top of NSPORT: Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline? A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline..., Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline..., Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met? A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.... JoelleJay (talk) 03:36, 13 December 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 10:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University of Toronto Institute of Biomedical Engineering

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

Non-notable subfaculty at the University of Toronto. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: "Faculties, departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field." Medical schools and law schools are mostly exempt due to usually being separate from the "main" school, so to speak. This just appears to be a subunit of U of T that may be an above-average biomedical engineering institute but hasn't really met the criteria for its own article. On the GNG front I haven't been able to find any third party sources that even mention this faculty after Binging "institute of Biomedical Engineering" u of t. All of the sources are affiliated with the university in some way. The best I could find was a press release from an affiliated company. [17] Much of the article appears to be written by someone affiliated with the university (username Bmeuoft) [18] so take the unsourced claims made in the article about the institute's importance with a grain of salt. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any information that is not COI-related to University of Toronto. – The Grid (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC) Delete per discussion below and there's nothing to save. – The Grid (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We had a similar discussion for the Computer Science dept of U of T a while ago. This one is even less notable, GScholar brings up mentions of the faculty mostly as titles of where authors work. Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources independent of the subject are cited. Notability is not inherited. Multi7001 (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The way the article is written is so dodgy and definitely feels non-objective, bad sourcing, fails GNG and BASIC bop34 • talk • contribs 04:56, 14 December 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 04:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Race Against Time (novel series)

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

Includes:

Revenge in the Silent Tomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Escape from Raven Castle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Evil in Paradise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Duel for the Samurai Sword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pursuit of the Deadly Diamonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Secret of the Third Watch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trapped in the USSR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Journey to Atlantis (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This book series, including all its individual entries, appears to be a failure of WP:NBOOK. All of these articles consist of plot only and are completely unsourced, and I cannot find significant coverage on either the series as a whole or any of the books; the closest it gets is small magazine mentions like this one, but no substantial reviews. Nothing on the (redlinked) author either. Lennart97 (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. A preliminary search didn't find reliable source to show notability. Isabelle ^🔔 01:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Sourcing just isn't there. GNG fail. Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sorry to appear snarky, but do editors look for reviews?, not doing anything fancy (but must admit time consuming:)), just doing a gsearch under ""title of book in inverted commas" by J. J. Fortune book reviews" brought up the following (allbeit short/precise(?)) hits: Revenge in the Silent Tomb and Evil in Paradise appear in the book - Books for You: A Booklist for Senior High Students. New Edition. published by the National Council of Teachers of English pages 4 and 79 where there are short reviews of each, they are also reviewed by Books for Keeps "Brilliant, ... I wouldn't spoil the tension-tingling ending for you, but it's genuine entertainment all the way.", combined review here, Trapped in the USSR is reviewed by Books for Keeps "So, it'll not be any great loss if you don't stock it, unless you are desperate for something undemanding for less confident, reluctant readers.", that also refers to the whole series as "a kind of B-Movie of the children's book world -- all stereotyping, masses of far-fetched melodrama, speedy action to mask creaky plots and goodies triumphing by the merest whisker.", here, Journey to Atlantis and Danger: Due North by Books for Keeps "Some authors spill out stories at a seemingly never-ending pace. Like the 'Hardy Boys' series, each book by J. J. Fortune mirrors the others. ... Easy to read, middle school material -- pure escapism!", combined review here, admittedly not enough for separate title articles by may be ok for the series article? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for locating these. I must say I did take the time before my nomination to look for reviews on each book, title in quotes and all that, but these didn't show up for me. Personally I do think this type of ultra−short review falls short of what GNG requires, and wouldn't be enough to make a reasonable series article beyond a mere listing of entries with plot premises. Lennart97 (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

acknowledged, admittedly reviews found around no. 40+ of ghits. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one article on the series, per the review Coolabahapple found they seem to each be quite generic and don't stand out indvidually, but notable as a whole. Rusalkii (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Plenty of stuff out there, pre internet doesn't mean non-notable. It was a fairly common book two find in school liberies. Super (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the assertion that the series is notable based on? The tiny review blurbs mentioned above clearly do not address the topic "directly and in detail", so unless the bar for what counts as substantial coverage is far lower for NBOOKS than it is for GNG, the evidence of notability isn't there, whether it's the individual books or the series as a whole. Lennart97 (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources cited above are superficial, which means that they do not establish notability for the series or the individual books. Sandstein 15:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As indicated in the discussion, scientific claims do not need to be considered proven (or even validly scientific) to be appropriate article subjects, as long as they meet our notability guidelines. If the article does not accurately represent the scientific consensus on the subject, this should be resolved by editing the article content rather than deletion. RL0919 (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Andes Plate

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

It is original research. There is no scientific consensus on the existence of this plate. Appears to be a fringe view (WP:FRINGE) based on a 2003 paper by Bird. The references does not mention the microplate. I propose part of the content is moved and merged into Geology of Colombia. The concern is similar to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altiplano Plate. Mamayuco (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Bird article mentioned by the nominator has been cited over 1300 times, which would seem to argue against WP:FRINGE. A quick Google search reveals numerous peer reviewed articles that refer to the plate. Whether or not there is a consensus on the existence of the plate isn't germane to whether or not the concept is notable, and this would unambiguously seem to be notable. PianoDan (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having been cited thousands of time does not mean that everthing in the article is correct or accepted. Geophysics have had much advance since 2003, so if the North Andes Plates would be an usefull construct it should have been noter so by other geologist working with plate tectonics. Just like Stephen Hawkings books and articles have been cites thousands of times some of his works are known to have been in error in some subjects. So, where is the validation that the North Andean Plate is indeed accepted among the plate tectonics community of Earth scientists? Mamayuco (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again - "Correct" and "Accepted" are NOT the metrics for inclusion in Wikipedia. "Notable" is the metric. We have an article on Phlogiston, after all. It took me ten seconds to find this article that refers to it, which has itself been cited 23 times. On the interaction of the North Andean Plate PianoDan (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can't proclaim on the topic area, but yes, correct != notable (or the inverse). And the term crops up in a sufficient number of publications [19] to show that it's present in the discourse. I do wonder why that paper by Bird (actually 2.2k cites) is not actually used as a reference, and only hangs out as the single "Further reading" item on the page. - Below a VAST and otherwise unconnected "bibliography". That article is a confusing construct... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's certainly a concept that appears to be attracting more support with time. Analysing those Scholar results, half of the references are 2014 to the present, but a quarter of them are from the last two years. Mikenorton (talk) 16:42, 6 December 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 07:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Batteroo Boost

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

Indigogo project that garnered some controversy on YouTube for a brief period around 2015. The only in-depth coverage is from this time, most of which is from blogs closely associated with the YouTube channels that covered it, with the majority of coverage before and after being paid coverage or other consumer reports, so by my assessment fails GNG by way of WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTADVOCACY. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lot's out there if you dig. Gizmodo did and article in it. This could be a great article by adding sources. Make it less adverty.Super (talk) 13:19, 2 December 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 03:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Towal, Washington

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

Another station along the Columbia, and like several of the others it was relocated when the old roadbed was inundated by damming. In neither case, though, does it seem to have any place for a town. In its first incarnation it was a passing siding on a ledge carved out beside the river; in its current form it is a much longer passing siding carved out on a new ledge along the river, and the "town" name has been moved on the topos to a second siding which branches off the first to service a small quarry, whose buildings are the only structures at the site. In the 1950s a house or such was built south of the track a bit east of the siding, but that's not a town. The place names DB calls it a station; I find nothing indicating a town. Mangoe (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence that this was a town, much less a notable one. –dlthewave ☎ 16:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Avilich (talk) 20:10, 7 December 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) 17:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Girl's Guide to Life

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

Non-notable television series. No significant coverage and unreferenced. SL93 (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Esquire Network per WP:CHEAP. Nate • (chatter) 04:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very little information added in the article about the show which aired for more than 6 years. The article also doesn't have any links or references. Mathieu Vouillamoz (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Show aired for years. Let's improve the article. This is not an appropriate canadaite for deletion. Its based off of a best selling book. Has had notable hosts as well over its six years run. Super (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Haphazardly voting Keep on everything isn’t a good idea. Even~~ Near the time of the air date of this show, it got close to zero coverage other than non-critical reporting. Although celebrities did seem to host the show, this doesn’t make the show notable in and of itself.

Please be civil and truthful. I vote delete, make comments, and vote to merge often. Why do you feel the need to use language that implies a threat. That's not in line with our objectives here on Wikipedia! Remember to shelve your personal feelings when it comes to afd's and remember to allow the democratic process to play out. This is a show that is hosted by a best selling author, has aired for 6 years, has had numerous notable guest hosts.Voting Keep seems more than reasonable.Super (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologies for the first part of my comment. I didn’t mean to come across as rude. Jobie James (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing about this TV show that I could find are various listings, useless coverage [20], ~~and~~ a very unhelpful IMDB page [21], and of course mentions of the show on the author’s page. [22]Jobie James (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing by way of sources to establish notability Dexxtrall (talk) 16:26, 3 December 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 03:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Locke

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

I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources, although I do see a lot of coverage in tabloid journalism like Hello! and the Daily Mail. So, I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass on this one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage. The coverage that I found is pointless, similar to what this source says about the Locke couple joining their surnames together upon marriage as an example of bad news reporting compared to serious issues. SL93 (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the nom no sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article.VirenRaval89 (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete typical famous-for-being-famous nobody celeb with typical tabloid/gossip junk coverage. The fact that he happens to be gay doesn’t change that, especially when he lives in a liberal western country in 2021. Dronebogus (talk) 21:56, 2 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sundale, Washington

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

On the banks of the Columbia River we take a break from the grain elevators and consider this rail station, for as best I can determine, that's all it was. The station siding is still there, and is southwest of the point marked by GNIS, because for some reason the topo people seized upon a loose spread of buildings as the "town". As far as I can determine, these were farm buildings: the aerials show this area covered by a sizable orchard. At any rate, references addressing the matter directly uniformly refer to this as a station. Mangoe (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find a few references to it but none as anything other than a point on a map. None as a community, which would make this fail WP:GEOLAND. (Sources found are: Eastern Oregon windbreak trees and shrubs and Small park with stone picnic tables near the Washington State town of Sundale along the Columbia River, which forms about four-fifths of the border between Washington and, to the south, Oregon.) snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 03:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but possibly Redirect ? --CappellsFromSkelmersdale (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK – The Grid (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs improvement not deletion. Seems like it can be improved. It has a popular camping area as well. Super (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article can’t be improved. A look through found sources shows no notability. A popular camping area does not warrant an article for this area. Jobie James (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Railroad stations are not inherently notable, and this one lacks significant coverage to establish notability. Would support Draftify if editors are willing to work on improving it. –dlthewave ☎ 16:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: we take humor where we can find it and this made me laugh "on the banks of the Columbia River we take a break from the grain elevators and consider this rail station".--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty good nom being both funny and to the point. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 13:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. It's a railroad siding and not a community. Glendoremus (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Snood1205. Google Scholar turns up a few papers that happen to mention the place, but none of them focus on the location itself. Jobie James (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Avilich (talk) 20:09, 7 December 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.