Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 13	September 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down Among the Dead Men (band)

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND unfortunately - could not find anything to prove notability after a quick Google search and does not seem to meet notability criteria otherwise. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 22:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 22:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the sources in the article, this, this, this and this. The last link is published on WordPress, but it has a large editorial staff. SL93 (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 23:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG per SL93.4meter4 (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Xcitement Wrestling Federation personnel

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Assault Championship Wrestling personnel and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former World Xtreme Wrestling personnel. No notable alumni for a very small promotion. Several werestlers are no notable and several of them have no sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most of the entries have articles so the nomination statement is incorrect and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Despite that, several of them has no article. Most of them, have no sources. The promotion was a independent promotion that lasted 4 years. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Xcitement Wrestling Federation was a short lived company. Not seeing how this list is encyclopedic.4meter4 (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nasr Mahrous

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

Only one source is given here. I am not able to find any more. Not qualifying WP:GNG Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanette Zacarías Zapata

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

The only reason the subject is being covered is because she died as a result of injuries sustained during a match. I'm not sure if WP:BLP1E applies here, but it should; I couldn't find any coverage of her prior to her death and with a record of 2 wins 4 losses, she doesn't have any notable achievements as a boxer (fails WP:NBOX miserably). Coverage will more than likely return to the same amount it was before her death, which was nothing. ².O.^Boxing 20:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While her death was tragic, sadly it's all too common in boxing. I think this falls under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E since she doesn't appear to be WP notable for anything else. Papaursa (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When a case is handed to a coroner to investigate, https://www.delta-optimist.com/national-sports/quebec-coroner-to-probe-death-of-mexican-boxer-jeanette-zacarias-zapata-4302500 it's reasonable to expect that the inquest jury or coroner's report will make recommendations that will change the way boxing is regulated in Quebec and elsewhere, perhaps by placing greater restrictions on future matches for boxers who have been knocked out. This story says "There are calls for changes to the sport of boxing following news that 18-year-old Mexican boxer Jeanette Zacarias Zapata has died following a knockout during a match in Montreal last weekend." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources don't show significant coverage of the subject, they're covering the event itself. Every time there's a death in boxing there's an investigation and subsequent "calls for change", which never happens, even when a coroner recommends it. Here's a few sources discussing other deaths and injuries in boxing over the years: 1, 2, 3, 4, along with many, many more, and no changes made. This is a natural reaction to a death in any contact sport. Still fails GNG and WP:NBOX. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. – ².O.^Boxing 11:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per comments above. If this causes changes to boxing, it would probably be worth mentioning on the Boxing page, but does not need it's own page just in case that happens. FiddleheadLady (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^Boxing]] 11:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of Pittsburgh. ✗plicit 12:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University of Pittsburgh Honors College

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

Individual schools or departments are rarely notable, and this one is no exception. I've already removed some academic spam from the article, but the sourcing reveals that this is not notable by our standards--the only secondary sourcing is from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and it's run of the mill news of the kind that a local paper would be expected to report. It does not pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Pittsburgh, where any interested editor can add back in any of the very limited pertinent information regarding this program. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the University of Pittsburgh, for my opinion, it's better to just keep it than to redirect it, it's better if just improve it, there are many editors who are interested in editing.

Kuadro De Alas (K.D.A) ^{TT me} 08:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Pittsburgh, as there isn't a particularly strong case for individual notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Pittsburgh per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. then redirect to Pacifism#Religious attitudes. MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Religion of peace

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

A badly conceived FORK, supposedly intended to describe the pacifistic, peaceful nature of world religions, it ended as a (controversial) collection of quotes on a meme, with a positive and negative things people have said about Islam in various media outlets or its comment sections, some of which shouldn't even be used on our project. The total absence of proper academic sources gives us little hope of articles development in its current direction. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Ostensibly, there's no obvious unifying theme here. There's a collection of references to various uses of the phrase "religion of peace", but there's nothing to tie them all together. However, the phrase "religion of peace" is these days widely used as a reference to Islam, and is generally used sarcastically by right-wing commentators. The reference to Coulter's use of the term in the article is typical. It's hard to see how any use of "religion of peace" can ever be NPOV, and it's not obvious to me that any of the references are actually to sources that are analysing the phrase rather than engaging in biased posturing. This article strikes me as nothing more than an attempt to embed sloganising in Wikipedia. RomanSpa (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Islam There is only one context in which this phrase is ever used, and that is when it is used sarcastically to refer to Islam. Non-neutral redirects are explicitly permitted, so there is no real reason not to turn this into a redirect when it is probably a likely search term. Mlb96 (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Pacifism#Religious attitudes as a better target. Mlb96 (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am still around, so I will say just that I find this to be reasonable suggestion, thanx.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pacifism#Religious attitudes per Mlb96. That's a lot better than using this article title for a collection of pro- and anti-Islam quotes, which is what it currently amounts to. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that several major religions have both peaceful and violent teachings, traditions, or histories, and that includes Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism to name a few. Hence it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to select any one of them and designate it as the "Religion of peace". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. More the sort of actual topic the phrase suggests to people not already in on the meme/joke/secret/whatever. As is, a collection of uses and near-uses is more suited to a dictionary. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect. The suggested target is excellent; thank you, Mlb96. But delete first, per WP:Neutrality and WP:Reliable sources, since the article shows neither. Some background: this AfD is the result of a recent discussion on the article’s talk page about the article’s subject matter and focus. The talk page shows similar discussions challenging the neutrality and content of the article, going back more than four years. The article in its current state is not about the concept of being a “religion of peace”, which is undefined. The actual article is entirely about Islam and whether it is or is not a "religion of peace." The article text consists of two dozen random quotes saying either that it is or that it isn’t. We ultimately reached consensus that the article is inherently POV and should not be included in this encyclopedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In my first comment I said that Mlb96 suggestion to redirect is good, because term probably is very common search query, but I also assumed deletion is, for reasons MelanieN explained (thanks, MN!), implied.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's my buzzword! We can share, though, no copyright claimed, reserved or permitted. I also see no problem with deleting the old target first, if fresh starts are historically cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Islam. May be if it was put together more coherently, but at the moment its just a list of references, not really an article. I think this could also be a section on the Islam article, as the phrase is specifically associated with it (in negative and positive ways) rather than other religions. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have to agree with Metropolitan90, and reiterate my support for Mlb96's proposal (redirect to Pacifism#Religious attitudes) amended by MelanieN (delete & redirect).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pacifism#Religious attitudes.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. by Doug Weller under WP:CSD#G5 (non-admin closure) Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Mahendra Pratap Singh University

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

not conceivably notable until it actual opens. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: this article was created by a sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanjay Kumar Tiwari20 Doug Weller talk 12:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hardly surprising. do you want to do the G5? DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: done. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Easton

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

This has been marked as needing citations since 2008. The article includes no reliable sources. I can't find any reliable sources online. Same for the alter ego Aida Libido. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability.Brayan ocaner (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Couldn't find any sources for this Christopher or Aida Libido. FiddleheadLady (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohanrao Palekar

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Possible ATD is redirect/merge to Jaipur-Atrauli gharana. This has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now get an answer. Would be interesting if anyone who can read Hindi was able to look at it. Boleyn (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 21:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Boleyn: Hindi Wikipedia doesn't have an article about Mohanrao Palekar. I added an English-language reference from Mint that mentions his name as if we should know who we was, but that doesn't provide details. I also added a reference about a vocalist who had been taught by Mohanrao Palekar. Finally, there's the already-existing reference "^ G. K. Nimkar: प्रथम मासिक श्राद्धदिनानिमित्त वाहिलेले परिचयपुष्प - a brief biographical sketch after the first month that might be to a book or perhaps something else, but it looks as if it might be in-depth. I think Mohanrao Palekar is an important culture figure, but I don't read Hindi, and I can't say for sure that there are multiple in-depth references out there. There must be, though, and I would say WP:IAR and keep. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: as per nomination. 2 references in the article and both are just mentions about the said person without any details.defcon5 (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Chabad. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CTeen

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

Article is written like a promotional advertisement. Many of the references are primary and in-house promotion of their programs e.g., suicide prevention, learning of Torah. Nothing to indicate notability outside of Chabad. Whiteguru (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and think it should be left for a while to see how it develops. It definitely needs more work but there are plenty of reliable sources for the information in this page from mainstream press sources outside Chabad.Londoner77 (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the page in it's present form needs a lot of work, but there are clearly enough general media references to meet the WP:NOTABILITY standard, as well as merit it's own page. I will try and improve the substance and format when I find some time, but meanwhile feel it should stay. Winchester2313 (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 20:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chabad. This organization has, at best, marginally significant coverage in independent, reliable source. Most of the sources that are independent or reliable are not significant and vice-versa. Some of the significant coverage is in reliable sources that are part of the same or similar movements, making the independence criterion a bit borderline so "Merge" seems the best outcome per WP:ATD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 23:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berkay Çatak

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

First discussion closed as no consensus a month ago. Most sources in the article are about his creation, Gören Duyan. These make the company notable, not him. "Kimdir?" kind of sources are dismissed on trwiki as they are mostly, regardless of the publisher, not independent (explanation). The only source that contributes to notability is the Hürriyet one, which means this person doesn't meet GNG.

Interestingly the article of Gören Duyan and this person have been created across multiple projects by the same user, even in languages they don't speak, a pattern that most of the time points towards a COI. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 18:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 18:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 18:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep, it was already discussed a month ago, i don't think the second one is needed. My previous review: "Meets the notability criteria. There are many news on the person. An encyclopedic content was created with the resources provided.".--𝘋𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘴 ϟ ^Heyyo? 17:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed as no consensus, so it doesn't mean it can't be re-nominated. "Meets the notability criteria", no he doesn't. "There are many news on the person", no there aren't. COI declaration when? ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 10:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the sources added by 4meter4 establish the band's notability. Sandstein 06:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lee's Corvette

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

Unref article. Lots of (quite promotional) claims of notability, but nothing verified, no evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, speedy close, and trout the nominator harshly. Mary Lee's Corvette is a prominent Americana band which has received extensive critical attentionj. It's been covered at varying lengths by publications ranging from the NY Times, Washington Post, and the New Yorker in the general press to Uncut, No Depression, Billboard, and Rolling Stone in the music press. The nominator's insistence that citing favorable critical commentary is somehow "quite promotional" is ridiculous. There's a strain of institutional misogyny underlying this nomination, the notion that female performers aren't generally notable with tabloidish coverage of their romantic/sex lives, butt- and breast-baring photography and other forms of exhibitionistic behavior, and various modes of embarrassing or self-destructive public behaviour. Just making critically praised music isn't enough for a woman. And even if I'd never heard of Mary Lee Kortes before this discussion, it would be the work of thirty seconds or so to review cursory Google search results and see that sufficient coverage apparently exists to support an article. This nomination is an example of the sort of careless, destructive editing that shames Wikipedia yet somehow never seems to embarrass the editors who commit it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This band may or may not be notable based on critical attention, but none of that critical attention is properly cited in this article. In fact, none of the band members other than the leader, Mary Lee Kortes, are mentioned by name. There are no proper citations at all, just two external links, to the band website and to an Allmusic page. "Trouting" of the nominator is not appropriate because the article really does have problems that need to be addressed if the article is to be kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Trouting the nominator is perfectly appropriate because it's evident they didn't perform the most perfunctory WP:BEFORE search. There is no case that the subject is not notable. No case whatever. Sloth is not the secret sixth pillar of Wikipedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin comment: I have struck this and the above comment by this user as personal attacks, and blocked the user for violation of their civility editing restriction. Sandstein 21:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. While it's unfortunate Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was not more civil in expressing his concerns, I concur with the underlying criticism of the nomination. Boleyn has been nominating dozens of articles for deletion that have been tagged for notability since 2008 and 2009 in rapid succession with not enough time between nominations to indicate time was spent researching these topics. I've been able to locate quality RS for many of them just doing a cursory WP:BEFORE search in google books and news; which indicates to me that many of these nominations were not made following the BEFORE guideline at AFD. @ Metropolitan90 Your deletion comments about the poor quality of the article are not policy based reasons for deletion because AFD is not cleanup. This article is in horrible shape and needs re-writing, but we have enough sources to pass both GNG and WP:MUSICBIO so there is not a strong policy based rationale to delete.4meter4 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Off-topic question: @Sandstein: The last block was six months, and it literally expired a month ago. While blocks aren't punitive, if this user isn't getting the memo, ... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        RandomCanadian, I think that the conduct of users should not be discussed in an AfD, but in other appropriate fora. Sandstein 12:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Article's subject does not seem notable to me (article does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG).--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The press section of the subject's website's cites quotes from multiple RS sources. If these can be directly sourced the article can be saved. I doubt I have the time or motivation to do it myself. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE, WP:PROBLEM, WP:TROUT, and related commentary above from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. For about the millionth time, inclusion is based on whether the subject is notable, not whether the article is good. Metropolitan90 got it absolutely right when they said, "the article really does have problems that need to be addressed". Problems indeed. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another WP:DRIVEBY as explained above. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two best sources cited, The New Yorker and Billboard, do mention this band but don't support the statements they are being cited to support. The New Yorker item [1] is only two sentences long and says nothing about the band recording an EP titled Mary Lee's Corvette, in 1997, produced by Mary Lee Kortes's husband Eric Ambel, the claim it is being cited for. The Billboard item (Billboard actually mentions the band in two different articles that start on the same page, here) is being cited to support the claim that "MLC's breakthrough recording was of a live performance of the Bob Dylan album, Blood on the Tracks. The album attracted attention from many quarters, not least Dylan himself, for whom MLC later opened in New York." The big problem is that the live version of Blood on the Tracks was not recorded until 2001 and released in 2002 -- while the Billboard citation is from 1997, four or five years before the relevant events took place. That leaves only two proper references, one being a blog and the other being an article on the band's record company's own website. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am withdrawing my recommendation in light of the fact that more sources have been added to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are incredibly easy to find to pass WP:NMUSIC and WP:SIGCOV. Clearly a WP:BEFORE search was not done. Lastly, just because sources were improperly used by a contributor doesn't mean that we delete. Fix the article through editing not deleting. See the list below of significant in-depth independent RS; notably album or single reviews written by Geoffrey Himes, Mike Joyce, Chuck Taylor, and Shawnee Smith among others.4meter4 (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Himes, Geoffrey (23 April 1999). "MARY LEE'S CORVETTE: "True Lovers of Adventure"". The Washington Post. p. 19.
Joyce, Mike (11 July 2003). "MARY LEE'S CORVETTE: "700 Miles"". The Washington Post. p. H7.
Smith, Shawnee (February 15, 1997). "Artists & Music: Mary Lee's Corvette Is Ripe & Ready". Billboard. 109 (7): 10, 82.
Bessman, Jim (March 6, 1999). "Artists & Music: Mary Lee's Corvette Revs Up With Wild Pitch Set". Billboard. 111 (10): 11, 112.
Reece, Doug (April 5, 1997). "POPULAR UPRISINGS". Billboard. 109 (14): 16.
PAUL VERNA, ed. (February 8, 1997). "Reviews & Previews: ALBUMS". Billboard. 109 (5): 62.
Paoletta, Michael (December 25, 1999). "1999 the Year In Music: THE CRITIC's CHOICE'". Billboard. 111 (52).
Verna, Paul (October 25, 1997). "THE SURPRISING NEW SOUNDS OF NEW YORK CITY". Billboard. 109 (43): 1, 90-92.
Chuck Taylor, ed. (June 5, 1999). "Reviews & Previews: SINGLES". Billboard. 111 (23): 20.
Joshua Clover (April 1, 1999). "The Shredder". Spin. 15 (4): 167.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have either removed unsourced content or sourced content that was previously unsourced. I have added quality independent and in-depth sources. The article is now in much better shape than it was.4meter4 (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4, and other coverage in USA Today, Entertainment Weekly, The Morning Call, Wisconsin State Journal, News Sentinel, The Record, The Philadelphia Inquirer, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came here because Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was making personal attacks against me in several places so I was watching their edits and discovered they were blocked (is six months long enough?) but as a music project editor, I thought I'd check this too. I assumed I was on the right t rack when I found the AllMusic bio https://www.allmusic.com/artist/mary-lees-corvette-mn0000377664/biography and three reviews, https://www.allmusic.com/album/true-lovers-of-adventure-mw0000664068, https://www.allmusic.com/album/blood-on-the-tracks-recorded-live-at-arlene-grocery-mw0000222065, and https://www.allmusic.com/album/700-miles-mw0000019335. That pushes me over WP:GNG. The sources that 4meter4 and others have found make it clear the subject is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are plenty of sources now that prove WP:GNG. Thanks 4meter4 for improving the article! FiddleheadLady (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commendations to 4meter4 for improving the article dramatically. I encourage the nominator to follow the wise advice at WP:BEFORE. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ben Lamin

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

The claim that he has played for Tunisia is false and not supported by the sources cited. In fact, his Soccerway profile, Soccerway match report, Tunisia 2021 player list and NFT match report all clearly contradict the claim that he played in the game against Mali, which is the sole claim to notability. A Swedish source search came up with nothing better than routine coverage like this brief loan announcement. Fails WP:GNG. Given that he has only played in the 2nd and 3rd tiers of Sweden and youth internationals, he fails WP:NFOOTBALL too. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tunisia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails NFOOTY and GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sjö (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. I will be really interested to know from article creator @Cocô53: why they have been adding false information to articles. Giant Snowman 11:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FiddleheadLady (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Marshall

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

This person is only notable as a YouTuber and is not well known outside of YouTube. Subscribers do not define notability of course and therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT as mostly YouTube based or related to social media with not enough significant coverage. There are not too many references relating to this person and most relate to his all stations project which is the only thing with limited external coverage. Tube challenge world record is not quite enough to keep this article. We might keep the all stations page with a brief tube challenge mention but delete this one. YoutuberReporter3 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator is a new user who has only edited Geoff Marshall and this AfD. Their first edit was today, September 14, 2021. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question for nominator/OP - @YoutuberReporter3: could you please tell us about your BEFORE search? I'm failing to understand why existing citations such as the Daily Telegraph, BBC, BBC News, and Evening Standard are not being considered. Is there something I'm missing? I don't know much about the Londonist, so more info on that would also be helpful. Thank you in advance. Netherzone (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has been established by the sources of article. Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see many reputed sources cited on the page. Easy WP:GNG pass. 80.1.27.141 (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the person passes WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and WP:BASIC. The nominator appears to be claiming that the article is a case of WP:BLP1E, however, according to the sources present in the article Geoff Marshall has done the tube challenge at least three different times with three different people. He's gotten news coverage for each of these events from 2004 all the way through to 2017. I would think these count as seperate events the same way that an athlete competing in multiple competitions would be considered different events. One of the BBC sources focuses on the charity, which also seems like a seperate thing. I would guess a few Google searches might yeild further events. Either way it seems like a merge discussion or some other WP:ATD should have been pursued first. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As noted above, he has attracted quite a lot of coverage in reputable sources (and not just for having videos on YouTube), so I think he clearly meets notability requirements. Dunarc (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As said by others, Geoff has attracted media coverage in reputable sources, and notability has been established by the number and variety of independent sources. Rillington (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm finding enough in the existing article refs and online - outside of YouTube - to see that he is notable. The article can be improved but that is not a reason to delete. Netherzone (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete with no prejudice against a redirect. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Penn State Nittany Lions men's soccer team

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

Fails collegiate sport season notability guideline at WP:NSEASONS. No evidence of season's notability, which is currently ongoing, and in my opinion borders on both WP:CRYSTAL/WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOSTATS. Similar case as 2021 Ohio State Buckeyes men's soccer team AfD. GauchoDude (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure what is going on here, you have nuked about 50 pages in relation to college soccer in the last days and since I reverted your nuke on this page you have nominated for AFD. As for notability guideline at WP:NSEASONS I would argue Penn State men's soccer falls into the "programs considered elite", They have 11 national championships and are consistently ranked in the top 25 in coaches polls. This is definitely not WP:CRYSTAL, there are not projections and only announced dates/games as well as current standings. I don't believe it is WP:TOOSOON either since the season is being played not to be played, and as stated before the article has other evidence of notability. The only thing I could see this being is WP:NOSTATS which can be edited and changed. There are tons of articles about this season already that could be added to this page. In closing, I would say do not delete it makes not sense when they could simply make the NCAA tournament and then this page fully passes WP:NSEASONS without question. NoahRiffe (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, one of many college soccer seasons - we are an encyclopaedia, not a sports almanac. Giant Snowman 11:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question – Curious why this and Ohio State got nominated for deletion and not redirected like all the pages in the ACC? I had created all the pages there, and was keeping them updated as the season goes along and I understand WP:NSEASONS requires the team to make the NCAA tournament before a page is created. Therefore shouldn't this page be re-directed for now? Swimmer33 (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the article history, it looks like User:GauchoDude did redirect but User:NoahRiffe reverted it, hence why it got brought here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I guess it just came as a surprise to me that all the pages got redirected when I have created these pages for men's college soccer and women's college soccer for a few years as you can see from my user box. Caught me off guard that the pages have been reviewed and approved for 4 years and then all of the sudden one Friday night half of them are redirected without warning. Swimmer33 (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 19:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect – I'm going to steal the explanation from User:Jay eyem at the previously mentioned Ohio State AFD: "WP:TOOSOON, typically we wait to see if a team has made the NCAA Division I tournament before that presumption of notability for a college season generally kicks in under WP:NSEASONS, and I don't see anything at present indicating WP:GNG for this particular season. That may change but at present it remains too soon." That reasoning holds true here. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - I stand by this reasoning for this article as well, but I am also fine with a redirect for now. I am unsure about the argument of this team having an "elite status", especially since I am not familiar with the level of coverage the team receives. I highly doubt it is comparable to the examples given at WP:NSEASONS. A lot of college soccer teams only receive routine coverage from local sources, which is not sufficient for an article. That's generally why we wait until teams make the NCAA Tournament because they usually receive much more significant coverage at that point. Making the tournament absolutely doesn't mean the article is without question, just that there is a stronger case for it. Note that NSEASONS says to weigh the sport itself for college sports; college soccer receives a fraction of the coverage American football does. If there is significant coverage for Penn State soccer about which I am unaware, feel free to provide examples, but I otherwise think deletion or a redirect is the right choice for now. Jay eyem (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 23:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the Job (TV series)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Koikefan (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG. Article has no references and I cannot find anything substantial about it on Google. Koikefan (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is one imdb reference to this in 2007. Rest go to other start-up broadcasts by different employment agencies and work-training schools. There are recent references to HBO series of this name. No other references found. As per nom, fails WP:GNG --Whiteguru (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vantage media

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

Appears to be a non-notable now-defunct ad tech firm. It was rebranded as "Katch" around 2015, which has since been broken apart and sold to various companies. The website has been sold and is for a completely different service. Citing (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, this company no longer exists and the website is now a home photography service. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:NCORP guidelines, I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Helix...Loaded

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

Non-notable parody film. No coverage that would meet WP:NFILM. DePRODed because of the involvement of Vanilla Ice, but my WP:BEFORE found nothing more on it than this type of source that confirms that it happened but is not sufficient to establish notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS here to establish notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. Kolma8 (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does indeed fail WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. TH1980 (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Uptown Residences

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

Tall condo tower in a city with many. No notable architecture merit and no mention in the media. Fails WP:NBUILD Alaney2k (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... we could say WP:ITEXISTS but it exists to serve no real purpose here. Not without references. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Hallal

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

Not a notable person; sources mention him just in passing; article reads like a regular resume Ward330 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom, this reads like a curriculum vitae; most of the references are about shares, medical company start-ups and divestments, medical law and not this person. Only one reference is independent of the subject. Fails WP:BASIC --Whiteguru (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is about the company and not him. Fails WP:GNG. FiddleheadLady (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nupont

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

"Nupont", to describe Dupont Circle and Adams Morgan is definitely not a widely used term; I actually think the creator of the article made it up. It is not used by any online sources. Anecdotal, but I have lived there a long time and have never heard it. Ward330 (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, this is a hoax made up by an SPA. No references or map search go to this alleged locality name. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and send to WP:HOAXLIST. Can't believe this lasted ~6 years. wizzito | say hello! 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Check article talk page for further discussion. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of people killed while running

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as navigational list but reduce the scope to only notable people (i.e. people with stand alone Wikipedia entries). See outcome of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_who_died_in_traffic_collisions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There's not quite so much participation there that I will withdraw this immediately. If you want to reduce the list from 120 entries to 10, I agree that would be an improvement. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Removed non notable entries and extraneous facts about harassment/women that didn't have much to do with the list. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - When I look at the linked articles, most of them are "Murder of X" titles. Which ... actually addresses most of my concerns. I'll make a proposal elsewhere to address my concerns with these articles in general (List of skiing deaths), there's no point in a stand-alone discussion on this article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 23:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ingco Crew

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

This article would fail WP:A7 nowadays. There is no indication the group is notable or relevant. At Google News I only found that Natti Natasha was a vocalist [2] and at Google Books two passing mentions of the name [3] (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Williams (mixed martial artist)

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

Fails WP:MMABIO criteria by not having any fights in a top tier promotion. He does hold the world record for the oldest debuting mma fighter, but I didn't see enough independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 16:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Brunswick-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The man holds other records other than just being the oldest MMA fighter. Davidgoodheart (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hardly an obscure individual. I fail to see how this individual fails WP:Notability criteria. Article does, as mentioned above, need a few additional references, though.--Kieronoldham (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Force Online

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

This game fails WP:GNG for the lack of multiple secondary and significant coverage in reliable sources/WP:VG/RS. My WP:BEFORE search brings nothing but game entries and mentions in unreliable/blog MMO sites. All references in the article are WP:PRIMARY press releases on Gamasutra or direct links to the official website. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found nothing on this one. Nothing on IGN, Metacrtic or elsewhere. Timur9008 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NVG. If reliable outlets cover the game, it is through a republished press release, whoch is not secondary coverage. IceWelder [✉] 06:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable video game. 8 of 10 cited sources are some links from its official website, and the other two citations do not pass WP:GNG. Wario-Man ^talk 13:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A merge can be proposed outside of AfD Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omar & Salma

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

Non-notable film. Its sequel was recently deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar & Salma 3). Peter Ormond 💬 15:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I will try to find some references for the Arabic titles of these two films, Arabic: عمر وسلمى and Arabic: عمر_وسلمى_2_ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. I added some references. In general, if you are trying to determine the notability of an Arabic-language film, you need to search for the film's Arabic name. I expect that the delete decision on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar & Salma 3 will be overturned if anyone does a proper search. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merge films 2 and 3 into this one. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree that merging films 2 and 3 into this one is a good idea, as they are not big enough to have there own articles. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burhan Jumaah

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Yasin

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ihab Kadhim

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject played a senior international for Iraq, according to the NFT link present in his article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, I didn't pay attention. I'll withdraw my nomination. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Salam Enad

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samer Majed

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Abdul-Abbas

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Hussein Fandi

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haider Mohammed

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muntadher Mohammed

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muntadher Abdulsada

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Sartip

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Jabbar

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bassem Ali

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Also, it doesn't look like he played in the Olympics (the article is ambiguous about this), as he's not in the sourced squad list at Football at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#Iraq- had he played at the Olympics, that may have generated some coverage, but that isn't the case here. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Maan

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Mohammed Hussein

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Hanoon

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NFOOTBALL, as per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Abdul-Hassan

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Raheem

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Kareem

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NFOOTBALL, as per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of media coverage, such as this, this, and this. Nfitz (talk)

A contract renewal, returning from injury, and a passing mention of an injury are all but GNG-level coverage. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the coverage here is entirely routine and there isn't really anything that we can build a biography from. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Saleh Mejbel

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kerala Premier League. Fenix down (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BASCO FC

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

A semi-professional club both which fails NFOOTY and GNG. Also I can't find reliable sources from the web. Poppified ^talk 15:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Poppified ^talk 15:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Poppified ^talk 15:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Poppified ^talk 15:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Poppified ^talk 15:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kerala Premier League; possible search term but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 11:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No need to redirect because there is already an article on KPL and it plays in Kerala Premier League which is not a semi professional league. Also was nominated for the I league qualifiers so it deserves an article.

Do you have any evidence of significant coverage of this club? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kerala Premier League: Same stand with GiantSnowman. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 03:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Sidhu

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

This is a pure press release: referring to him by his first name, relying on sources like Businesswire, a publication whose only purpose it to publish press releases, sources from his own firm, and promotional interviews. As one would expect, it was started by an obvious coi editor , and apparently much revised by others.

He might or might not be notable, but the article would have to be started over. The guideline here is TNT. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I recognize that this article started out biased, but I think that I and other editors have cleaned it up a lot from the way the article arrived in 2008. I changed the first-name references to surnames. The stuff attributed to press releases is uncontroversial, and I think there are enough good references from reliable sources to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhta oover half the contents of the articles is still spam. When such drastic fixing is needed, the correct course is TNT. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even after improvement, this is still more puffery or a prose CV, not an article. Looking through the sources, there is very little that rises above the level of WP:MILL for a banking executive, if any. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khudhor Ali

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

Per WT:NFOOTY does not meet WP:NFOOTY, and no obvious WP:GNG either. Seany91 (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Seany91 (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NFOOTBALL, as per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Mohsen

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

Per WT:NFOOTY does not meet WP:NFOOTY, and no obvious WP:GNG either. Seany91 (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Seany91 (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Okonkwo

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

Non-notable footballer who hasn't played a fully professional game. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTY. Ortizesp (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This should've been a speedy delete nomination as exactly nothing has changed since the last deletion. --BlameRuiner (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the cited sources is dated Jul 2021 so there is a (trivial) difference from the previous article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More than trivial - he's been signed to Arsenal's first team - which means we'll likely be creating the article sooner or later - though the lot of a backup keeper is difficult. But let's waste everyone's time deleting it on technicalities. Nfitz (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if you remove the fan site coverage and the arsenal.com coverage, there's almost nothing there. I found this but it's not enough for WP:GNG. Draft:Arthur Okonkwo already exists so no point in sending another copy to draft. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG and WP:FOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NFOOTBALL, as per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the view that the subject clearly does not meet WP:GNG and WP:FOOTY at present, although this may well change in the future as his career progresses. Dunarc (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Svend Alexander Karlsen

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

The sixth tier of football in Norway isn't professional so this fails WP:NFOOTBALL by a long, long way. I can't find any coverage about him at all so WP:GNG is failed. I would also strongly oppose merging any of this unsourced content anywhere else. Given that the creator also created User:SvendKarlsen/Svend Alexander Karlsen, I suspect that this is an WP:AUTOBIO. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Certainly looks like an AUTOBIO. Nowhere near NFOOTY or GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, totally useless page, and has been A7'ed before. Geschichte (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Svend Karlsen which mentions him. Nfitz (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a redirect if someone is able to provide a reliable source that links these two people together. Otherwise, I would have to maintain that deletion is preferred. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the mention, because it was unwarranted spam. Geschichte (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYBM (Carcar)

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

Non-notable internet radio station which also broadcasts on terrestrial air without a license. There's barely any source about it; none of the sources in the article even talk about the station. It's not even listed in the recent NTC listing. The call letters belong to a station based in Bacolod. The ongoing approval of permit, as stated in the article, is perhaps an indication of WP:TOOSOON. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's too soon indeed, and it would need to meet the GNG anyway even after getting authority to broadcast. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BCAST and WP:GNG per nom. Internet stations are barely notable. SBKSPP (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BCAST and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nehme₁₄₉₉ 08:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mustafa (Iraqi footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No FPL so fails NFOOTY. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: In light of the comments below, do you want to change your opinion? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, Nehme. Changing suggestion to keep per UAE having FPL. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. According to Soccerway, he seems to have 23 appearances and counting (20 for Fujairah FC, 3 for his current club, Al-Nasr SC) in the UAE Pro League, which is listed as a fully professional league. What am I missing? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I overlooked the UAE clubs. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Struway. Giant Snowman 18:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY has played in the UAE Pro League a WP:FPL has played in 2021 and has a ongoing career.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete, sole keep vote claiming coverage fails to provide even a single source to support the claim despite the volume of Ghits Fenix down (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Basil

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played for a senior national team or for a team in a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Article says he was called up for the senior national team but no details are given. Do we know if he played or not? No Great Shaker (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @No Great Shaker: according to Soccerway, he was called up 5 times but never featured. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Thanks again, Nehme. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails NFOOTY and GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NFOOTBALL, as per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep white technically fails NFOOTBALL, five appearances on the bench as the backup keeper in World Cup Qualifiers (as recently as 10 days ago) makes him arguably one of the best keepers in the country. Not surprising then that there's no end of media coverage about him! Perhaps someone would like to wade through the 13,000 Google hits I'm getting. I don't know how people are doing BEFORE when nominating and voting on these Iranian players, but I don't feel that enough detail and time is being spent on each player. Nfitz (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13k hits: all passing mentions. Doesn't pass GNG. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:A7. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nagaur News

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

Does not appear to be notable - I cannot find significant coverage about this website in reliable sources (see WP:WEBCRIT) firefly ( t · c ) 13:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 13:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 13:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valknut (software)

AfDs for this article:

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

AfD from 2006 closed as keep so can't be prodded. There are numerous problems, I am afraid. All references are to primary source - the soft's webpage. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added 3 reference, see if it's enough. --Greatder (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Greatder Thanks, but a reference to another wiki (ubuntu wiki and [4]) won't help (wikis are unreliable WP:SPS). I have trouble opening the last ref but the url clearly calls that a blog anyway (http://www.linuxexpres.cz/blog/dc-download-zadny-problem-ii) so I am afraid none of those help much. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I didn't realize it was a self-blog, sorry. But, Ubuntu wiki is a pretty reliable source and is used in 121-ish pages[5]. But, I guess 2 reference is too little but given the amount of sources I found in blogs(non refferencable), I think it's a notable software. --Greatder (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Greatder Unless Ubuntu wiki was discussed at WP:RSN and got some exception pass, it is not a reliable source per WP:SPS and that means we have 121 pages to remove this link from... and sorry, if something is discussed on many blogs and nothing but it won't pass WP:GNG/WP:V. Such topics are fine for various fan wikis but not for Wikipedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the Ubuntu wiki is considered WP:RS for some things (like "DirectConnect is another example of a well-known file-sharing protocol. Among the supported clients are: valknut (KDE-native client)"), it doesn't help the case for WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: On another check it seems like the .cz site is actually a magazine[6] at the bottom. I will make an entry on RS:N, I am not adding blog posts as reference but merely suggesting that since it's talked about in these blogs, I felt it was notable enough to try to dig a few more source. --Greatder (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Greatder Discussing it at RSN is the best approach. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article introduces very many forks of the same software, without going into details on any of them. During a cursory search, I could not find any good sources on them, so none of them appear to be notable. These projects are: EiskaltDC, EiskaltDC++, wxDCGUI. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little coverage, all of it incidental. A couple mention its use in academic P2P research, most simply mention it as a DC client. It's not taught in schools, you won't find a third-party manual or instruction book [7], and it's of no demonstrable technical or historical importance. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Searching with dcgui, dcgui-qt, net-p2p/valknut and wxdcgui gives a lot more coverage on google. See

blog non-referencable: https://www.lysator.liu.se/~joorin/dcclib/
CVE: https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2003-0076
~~Can't speak German: https://www.berlios.de/software/valknut/~~
A manual! (http://snaggledworks.com/software/valknut/manual/manual.html)
FSF (https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Valknut)
wiki or not? (https://www.abclinuxu.cz/software/internet/p2p/wxdcgui)
archived homepage (https://web.archive.org/web/20040803073212/http://dcgui.berlios.de/index.php)

Link to one of the devs blog(http://axljab.homelinux.org/) dead.

--Greatder (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently not. Three are self-published, one is copied from Wikipedia, and one is little more than a link to the Sourceforge project. The exploit report is arguably non-trivial independent coverage, but doesn't really argue for notability. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FSF itself is a notable and reliable source for verifiability and general notability. Abclinuxu.cz seems to have proper editors and puts it in a encyclopedia style directory [8]. The manual is a primary source for facts as it is written by the project creator. The berlos.de actually seems to be one of the two main download sites referenced throughout all the documents as download page other than source forge. The CVE was in LWN article (https://lwn.net/Articles/21815/) clearly nontrivial and notable. --Greatder (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The FSF and abcLinux links are wikis, WP:USERGENERATED; all that's needed to edit is a free account. The manual is not written by the project creator ("This manual began life when I was a new Valknut user ... I'm still not an expert on Valknut") and is not edited and published with editorial oversight. BerliOS was an open-source host that transferred its projects to SourceForge and folded; that's why it's one of the two main download sites. You'll have to explain how a bug report on wxDCGUI is relevant to this article. In any case, a CVE doesn't itself contribute to software notability; if it did any forgettable app with a bad design could have an article. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yappy2bhere: I have edited a bit more, check now. --Greatder (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (software) and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article is notable enough to keep. Discussions about scope can be conducted on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13 Rajab

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

We already have articles for January 12 and so on. Do we want the same for other calendars (in this case, the Islamic calendar)? And if so, should it be restricted to "Islamic" events (births, deaths, ...) or should all events be recalculated to this calendar?

My first reaction would be to delete this article, but this community discussion can decide this better (and better now, when only one such article has been created, than after more work has been done). Fram (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article seems rather a good idea to me but there is no particular policy or guideline behind my thinking (nor behind this AfD nomination?). AfD is an utterly unsuitable forum for discussing which potential calendars might be covered or what types of events might be included. Deletion would be my last reaction. Thincat (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 13 Rajab is a day on the Arabic or Islamic calendar therefore its events should be restricted to Arabic or Islamic related events. this is a translation of fa:۱۳ رجب for English who interested in 13 Rajab. Such as other 5 language in its item Q4121761 on wikidata. Championmin (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Championmin. As we have articles related to the Western calendar, I see no reason not to allow articles related to the Islamic calendar. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but I can see no argument to restrict it to Arabic or Islamic facts only. We don't restrict the Gregorian calendar to Christian facts either. If this kind of articles is allowed, then it should have all important issues, but converted to the Islamic calendar. Then it can be claimed that we provide encyclopedic, neutral information to people who are more used to the islamic calendar. A parochial / religion based system of what to include and what to exclude doesn't belong on enwiki though. Fram (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  well that's my point as well. If there are "fewer Islamic events" that took place on a specific date, why don't we have such article about the month, which would enable us to list events ranging from 29 to 30 days on a single article. The dates aren't normally used outside Islamic world. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 05:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  "If this kind of articles is allowed, then it should have all important issues, but converted to the Islamic calendar", well this is a nice point as well, provided that we don't end up duplicating a bulk of content. I think we should do this on the name of month only instead of the date as we don't exactly get the correct conversion date. Events in Muharram, Rajab, Shaban, Ramadan etc, and list everything major from all over.─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 05:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the article in its current form is okay to be here. I'd however propose that the entries be moved to a specific list article that lists events that happened in the month of Rajab throughout the history. Well, we can have that easily, 12 lists for 12 months! We would be duplicating entries from the common Christian calendar that is generally used, in case we start making such lists for "each day" from "every calendar". ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 05:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's Islamic calendar Which Presents events that happened or happens related to Muslims and Islam i believe it is ok to be there.--—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and restrict to Islamic events.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Why would we have list articles for a date, but restrict them on religious grounds? How doesn't that violate WP:NPOV? Fram (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; restrict to Islamic events and people. Given that religious festivals/events and historians/scholarly writers in the muslim world routinely use this calendar, its of use to both researchers and readers in this content area to have a wiki articles on the individual days of this calendar in relation to that subject specific content/cultural area. While we could feasibly allow such pages to also include material outside of that area (such as global events), that would seem to be an unnecessary WP:FORK of that material on the English language wiki where we have plenty of coverage already. The value of this material is covering the Islamic world within its own cultural frame of reference, and providing supports for those consuming reference materials written by Islamic scholars.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kennedy (referee)

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

Notability tagged for over 3 years.

I found this article published by PRO which is about him, however, this is not an independent source (WP:IS) as it is the organisation that he is currently in charge of that published the article. I also am of the opinion that the Illinois State Soccer Award is not enough for WP:ANYBIO. He is mentioned once in this Toronto Sun piece. Aside from that, I could find barely anything on him apart from database profile pages and being listed at the bottom of a match report as the assistant referee or referee. I can't find much in the way of WP:SIGCOV from an independent and reliable source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. Plenty of passing mentions but no coverage to meet GNG. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to 2021 Lethbridge municipal election. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Mearns

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate for mayor of a city. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they have not won -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. But there's no other strong notability claim here that would have gotten her into Wikipedia independently of a candidacy, and the referencing is a mix of primary sourcing, one local news article that just soundbites her opinions on an issue without being about her in any significant way, and a small smattering of purely local campaign coverage that is not sufficient to get her over WP:GNG all by itself. Nothing here is enough to deem her already notable today, and Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform for election candidates to republish their campaign brochures. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if possible, instead of deleting, would it be better to merge some of the content with Bridget Pastoor? There is also some more coverage that could be used for sourcing - like CTV Calgary, Global News in 2014, and Global News in 2017, NHCLS (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With 6 years as councillor of one of the biggest cities in the province, a city of over 100,000, I think she does meet NPOL given the amount of province-wide references I can find about her from 2010 to 2017 in a simple Proquest search. And that's without the recent coverage as a 2021 mayoral candidate! She's hardly a fringe candidate, finishing second with 30% of the vote in the 2013 Lethbridge municipal election. At a minimum it should be a redirect to 2021 Lethbridge municipal election. Nfitz (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rule for the notability of city councillors isn't "six years in a city of over 100,000 gets her in"; it's "either she served on the city council of an internationally prominent global city or bust". The rule for the notability of candidates isn't "people who finished second with 30 per cent of the vote are in and only lunatic fringe candidates are out" — it's "no non-winning candidate ever gets an article just for being a candidate at all, unless she has some other valid claim of preexisting notability for other reasons independent of an unsuccessful candidacy". And when I search her on ProQuest, I don't get GNG-building coverage about her, I just get a bunch of glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things, almost entirely in the Lethbridge Herald itself with little evidence of the sort of unusually wide coverage beyond the Lethbridge area that it would take to make her more special than other Lethbridge municipal councillors. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL says no such thing. Please don't make up policies to support your AFD, User:Bearcat. It simply says that "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. Nfitz (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make stuff up. I am entirely correct about AFD's established consensus around how the notability of local political figures works: since every municipal councillor in every city always receives local press coverage in their local media, our entire consensus that not all local politicians are "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles would be completely meaningless if all a municipal councillor had to do to pass the bar was show that a handful of run of the mill local coverage of local politics exists. So the notability test for a municipal councillor is not "has she gotten her name into her own city's local newspaper?", precisely because not a single city councillor in the history of city councils has ever failed to achieve that — it requires evidence that she's markedly more notable than most other city councillors, such as by getting nationalized coverage in The Globe and Mail. It requires evidence that she's a special case, not just evidence that she exists as a city councillor. Not because I said so, either, but because virtually every AFD we've ever had on a city councillor said so whether I was the nominator of it or not.
See also WP:POLOUTCOMES, which clarifies our notability standard for municipal councillors in much more detail than the generic Coles Notes version at NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mislead us by claiming that what is stated at WP:POLOUTCOMES is a rule; it is not, it's merely an essay. NPOL says significant press coverage. We've long-since supported the significant coverage can be local, not national. But wait, there is national coverage, such at this. There's even brief mentions in major non-Albertan publications like the Toronto Star! Nfitz (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's misleading because WP:POLOUTCOMES does accurately reflect longstanding practice and consensus across hundreds if not thousands of similar AFDs, and is frequently quoted and cited in similar AFDs and is widely respected among active regular volunteers at AFD. As such, it articulates common practice at AFD and puts words to what is essentially the unofficial guide to how we have historically applied NPOL at AFD. Is it a policy or official rule, no. Is it commonly accepted practice that is typically enforced by rulings at AFD, yes.4meter4 (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

POLOUTCOMES is an accurate assessment of longstanding consensus around how the notability of politicians is actually measured in cases of debate. Again, every city councillor in every city can always show enough local press coverage to claim that they've passed NPOL #2 — but we have a longstanding consensus that we don't want to indiscriminately maintain articles about every city councillor in every city. So the notability test for a city councillor is not just "some local press coverage exists", and does require a reason why she could be considered much, much more special than most other city councillors.
Also, brief mentions don't help to build WP:GNG. She isn't the subject of that Toronto Star source, but just has her name mentioned a single time in an article that isn't about her at all, so that article does absolutely nothing whatsoever to help bolster notability. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NPOL fn 8 includes A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists, so per the sources found by NHCLS, i.e. Bigger and more interesting: Former councillor in the running for Lethbridge's mayor (CTV Calgary, 2021, including a focus on the significance of her running to become the first woman mayor), Bridget Mearns elected: What it means for Lethbridge city council (Global News, 2014, including her political career background), ‘It was an honour’: Lethbridge councillor stepping down after two terms in office (Global News 2017, more career background), both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG/WP:BASIC appear to be met; there is also local news that includes a focus on the significance of her run to become the first female mayor (Lethbridge News, 2021). She also has coverage in her role as executive officer of BILD Lethbridge, e.g. Global News, 2019. Beccaynr (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. Long standing consensus at AFD is that city councilors aren't notable, and that all regional/local press is considered unusable towards RS per WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:LOCAL because essentially press coverage of city councilors in their city/province lack's sufficient independence to establish notability. Further, most of the wider press coverage is on a failed political campaign to run as mayor of Lethbridge. Longstanding practice at AFD is that all mayoral candidates and elected mayors in most places other than cities much larger than Lethbridge (like New York City, Los Angeles, and comparable major cities of millions of people) are also not inherently notable; so even if she had won this election she would not pass under NPOL. Not seeing how a reasonable argument could be made using NPOL as a rationale given past precedent on how this guideline has historically been implemented in regards to city councilors, mayors, and candidates for mayor wikipedia wide. I don't think we should overturn precedent now.4meter4 (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The WP:LOCAL essay states, An article about a local place or person may be created if there is enough referenced information to make it encyclopedic and this appears to be possible here, because there is WP:SUSTAINED and in-depth coverage focused on Mearns, including from news outlets beyond the municipality where she has held political office, worked, and is now running for political office again. And to the extent it may be relevant, the recent coverage is not about a failed political campaign to run as mayor, because Election Day is October 18, 2021 (City of Lethbridge), and past AfD precedent has found the topic of first women mayors to be notable. Beccaynr (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but historically we require media with national or international coverage to make a city councilor notable, not local or regional. So WP:LOCAL still applies since the sources are considered ROUTINE and trivial. As for first woman mayors, she hasn't won yet and this would still not be a reasonable rationale to keep currently per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. A draftify would be reasonable under the circumstances, and providing she wins, the article could then be moved into main space after the election.4meter4 (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But Global News is national coverage for her career as a city councilor, so it appears per this reasoning that a standalone article is currently supported, including because the coverage is specifically focused on her and her career and its significance. From my view, the additional more recent reporting helps support WP:BASIC notability as well. None of the sources in my comment appear to be WP:ROUTINE, because they cover far more than such things as announcements [...] press conferences etc. and instead provide an in-depth focus on Mearns. It further appears that independent and reliable sources consider her mayoral campaign sufficiently "worthy of notice" to cover in-depth with WP:SECONDARY context, so even if she does not win, these sources appear to add further support to her notability per the guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We would need three such sources of similar quality, not a single source, to justify an article. Please understand that this is the typical measuring stick applied at AFD across hundreds of similar AFD discussions on city councilors, mayors, and other politicians at the city and county/regional level for over the last 15 years. We have a higher than normal threshold because most local/regional press is discounted as too closely connected to the subject to count towards GNG/BASIC/NPOL for municipal political figures. It's very rare to find articles on city councilors or even mayors for a city the size of Lethbridge or even five times the size of Lethbridge. For the most part, we don't even have articles on city councilors for major world cities like New York or Toronto. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears there are articles for every current member of the New York City Council and Toronto City Council, and as to local journalism, I think each source should be evaluated as to whether it is WP:INDEPENDENT on its own merits, e.g. is it reprinting a press release, or uncritically reporting an announcement or speech, etc., instead of automatically dismissed. Beccaynr (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Global News hit is from Global's local station in Lethbridge, not from the national news division, so it does not reify into "nationalized" coverage for the purposes of making a city councillor in Lethbridge more notable than city councillors in other cities the size of Lethbridge. Just because most of the Canadian television networks publish the local coverage from their local stations on subsections of the network's common website rather than separate standalone websites for each individual station does not mean that all Canadian local television coverage automatically turns into "nationalized" coverage — the local vs. national distinction still applies and is still easily determined, you just have to look in different places to find out which type of coverage it is than you would look in the US. (For example, the author of the source is Tom Roulston, who is a local journalist at Global's local news bureau in Lethbridge and not a national reporter for Global National.)
Whether you agree with it or not, we have a longstanding consensus that city councillors in global cities like New York City and Toronto are accepted as notable precisely because of the city's global status, while city councillors in non-global cities are not notable unless they can be demonstrably shown to be special cases of significantly greater notability than other non-global city councillors. So the fact that you can find NYC or Toronto city councillors whose articles aren't citing anything more than local sourcing doesn't mean anything, because the bar for global city councillors is different from the bar for most other city councillors. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to 2021 Lethbridge municipal election. Reads like campaign brochure, promotional and glowing. It's hard to see a usable article after all the NPOV or promotional material is removed. This is on top of Bearcat's arguments on notability (i.e. Lethbridge is not Toronto/Calgary). Bkissin (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Video Croissant

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

Non-notable collection of music videos. The article cites only one source that barely qualifies as significant coverage, while Faith No More's article does not even mention the collection, let alone cite sources that we can use to support it.

Finally, a WP:BEFORE search turns up some youtube videos, some fan pages, and some basic information that tells us that this thing exists, but no significant coverage.

In short, it doesn't meet WP:GNG, and as far as I can tell none of the subject-specific guidance applies. BilledMammal (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. Fails to show notability, and even if the first source was good a single source isn't really enough to show significant coverage. bop34 • talk • contribs 11:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 18:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Piotr

AfDs for this article:

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

This "article" is a thinly veiled advertisement, and the sources are standard puffery. Collaborating with notable musicians is a classic WP:NOTINHERITED for notability of this subject. It was rejected 4 times (!) at AfC, I can't honestly say I'm clear on what made the 5th version any more suitable, and this page has only become more vanispamcruftisement since. The gross overuse of quotes just shows how desperate the people who created and expanded this were for filler material to make this look like a legitimate article. Plus, the article absolutely reeks of COI editing; The Digital Sky is a music company affiliated with the subject, and I've just blocked the creator per WP:CORPNAME. Technically not eligible for G4, as tempting as it would be, so starting this discussion here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reviews of albums, links to non-notable websites and other semi-useless sources. One, maybe two bigger mentions as sources. Overall, not for Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Oaktree b: reviews of albums and singles in real publications definitely count towards notability (for bands and musicians). BuySomeApples (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's enough sources to meet gng, and probably other guidelines too. There's PopMatters,[9] Entropy,[10] Tiny Mix Tapes,[11][12][13][14] Cyclic Defrost,[15] and The Needle Drop,[16] among others. There's also a host of interviews in other publications (I know they don't add to notability, but they make the page more complete). BuySomeApples (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are all utterly run of the mill filler material for publications that need to churn out something. Obscure website reviews/interviews obscure "musician" (to be generous with the term), so what? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I only included music publications that are themselves notable and used as reliable sources. (It's not like PopMatters is some obscure site.) The music publications do publish a lot of articles about music, but that's kind of the purpose of their existence. As long as they have standards it isn't a problem. There are definitely some niche reviews that I could have added here but didn't. And how is it "generous" to use the term musician? It seems like the subject is primarily known for making music. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @BuySomeApples ~~Could you link here 2-3 best sources? Ones that are most reliable and meet WP:SIGCOV ?~~ Oh, I see you did, thank you. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Piotrus: I was gonna add them again but then I saw your edit! I just chopped down the page to take out a lot of the filler and add better sources. (definitely not my best work), but at least it's more encyclopedic. (Edit: I didn't notice XLR8R when I first looked at the page, but there's that too.[17][18]) BuySomeApples (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG Sources in article don't show depth and not enough Varousz (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You know it's a red flag where a Foo-ian artist does not even have an article on Foo-ian Wikipedia. I checked, he never even had one on pl wiki. At best, WP:TOOSOON, does not seem to meet WP:NARTIST. Article's author was a WP:SPA blocked for "promotional username", so some WP:COI is very likely anyway. PS. That said, the new sources linked by BSA above are not bad. This should've been deleted few years back (when it was recreated, since it was deleted before, and when recreated in 2018, the better sources BSA found, dating to 2019+, did not exist) but the subject is possibly notable now. That said, I dislike using Wikipedia for advertising, so unless someone feels like rewriting this, I am not feeling like voting keep to encourage more abuse of the project by people or their managers who just want to use us to further their career. So for now I'll abstain, even through given the sources I'd usually vote weak keep or such. Also, given the insistence on promoting this person, there is always the suspicion the 'better' sources were paid for anyway. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... Meh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Even without the blatant promotion, we're still left with the skeleton of a COI article about someone that worked with notable people. The "best" sources are still extremely marginal, very much run of the mill filler material. Covering notable songs and happening to collaborate with people notable for reasons entirely unrelated to the subject is unremarkable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not to beat a dead horse but I took out the covers / collaboration filler so its only stuff which is actually about him. (weirdly most of the collab stuff was sourced to blogs and personal sites anyway) Most of the page was written by me at this point but I'll admit none of the sources are Rolling Stone. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BuySomeApples. There's enough RS here to pass WP:GNG among all the fluff and promotion.4meter4 (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The coverage that is significant is either promotional or WP:MILL or not reliable. After wading through the cruft, coverage that establishes this musician has had an impact through their own efforts on the industry or culture is distinctly missing. This article attempts to instead cobble together a chimera from this tidbit here and that interview there and this review in the other place and unlike the classical chimera which had the power of myth and magic to keep it together, this eventually falls apart. In other words, what The Blade of the Northern Lights said. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis. Given that the deletionists seem to be ignoring basic policies on evaluating sources for GNG, I am providing a detailed source analysis demonstrating that the subject meets criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. All of the magazines and e-zines listed are independent and have editorial oversight and are considered reliable independent and significant RS. See below.4meter4 (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis
Source	Independent?	Significant Coverage?	Reliable?	Pass/Fail	Notes
https://www.popmatters.com/derek-piotr-grunt-review-2608483566.html	Y	Y	Y	Y	Album Review in independent magazine with byline
https://entropymag.org/derek-piotr-making-and-then-unmaking/	Y	Y	Y	Y	Album Review in independent e-zine with byline
https://www.tinymixtapes.com/chocolate-grinder/premiere-derek-piotr-bhadrakali-lines-are-all-dying-mix-simon-whetham	Y	Y	Y	Y	Granted a rather thin review of a remix album; but nevertheless independent feature on it with byline
https://www.tinymixtapes.com/chocolate-grinder/listen-derek-piotr-repeating-bloom-simon-whetham	Y	Y	Y	Y	Album Review in independent e-zine with byline
https://www.tinymixtapes.com/chocolate-grinder/premiere-derek-piotr-grunt	Y	Y	Y	Y	Song review in independent e-zine with byline
https://www.tinymixtapes.com/chocolate-grinder/listen-derek-piotr-earth-edit-chaircrusher-remix	Y	Y	Y	Y	Song review in independent e-zine with byline
https://www.cyclicdefrost.com/2019/07/derek-piotr-avia-dpsr/	Y	Y	Y	Y	Album Review in independent magazine with byline

Those are thinly veiled booster articles masquerading as actual reviews, and they're independent but generally very obscure outlets. I think Eggishorn above said it best, so I won't go on further. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't. They are independent magazines and e-zines (from multiple nations/continents) that regularly produce independent reviews with editorial oversight. They are regularly used to verify content on wikipedia, and are respectable sources. Saying otherwise is just flat out not true. WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments are not convincing. 4meter4 (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: Disagreements on the reliability of a source can be brought up at WP:RSN. ––FormalDude talk 21:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. However, I see no valid or rationale reason to challenge them. The sources are clearly independent. They have editorial boards, by-lined authors writing musical criticism, and are not regurgitating content found elsewhere. They are clearly doing the work of music criticism in the way that an independent publication should. There is no consensus currently that these sources are unreliable (such as those catalogued at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) and I see no valid or obvious reason to challenge them. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep album reviews in many reliable sources are the solid reason I accepted this at AFC and the nominator's attempt to dismiss reliable sources secondary coverage such as Pop Matters and Tiny Mix Tapes is not credible. it is how the notability of musicians and bands are determined as per WP:NMUSIC criteria 1 particularly when interviews are discounted. The sources have been approved in discussions at Wiki Project Albums. Reliable sources coverage that is independent and secondary is not run of the mill and although the coi is unfortunate it is not a valid reason for deletion and there are no other valid reasons, so the article passes WP:GNG and should remain although it can be edited for neutrality, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A couple random one-off reviews of completely obscure albums means nothing, other than places need to fill their pages with... pretty much anything, and wannabe musicians will do anything to push their music anywhere that will. None of these albums has any meaningful commercial success or impact, and the sorts of reviews in question are completely run of the mill; absolutely nothing remarkable about it. Unless they'd confer notability on pretty much everyone else they review, which does not appear to be the case, we're left with nothing but that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, your dismissive tone has no basis in policy or guidelines. As I said album reviews in reliable sources as mentioned above plus Drowned in Sound and the Quitous are the main criteria for determining the notability of a musical act. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. I hazard to guess that this is the most obviously notable musician article in this AfD category and of course if the albums are reviewd in five or six reliable sources they are not obscure and the reviews are not random, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Brand

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

Worth noting first of all that referees are not covered by WP:NFOOTBALL so the fact that he officiated in one game in the 2004 Copa América or two games in the 2006 Copa Libertadores is not reason enough to keep the article. The coverage must satisfy WP:GNG for Brand to be kept. He is mentioned once at the bottom of El Universo and once in Balonazos. I found this article on ProQuest, which shows a manager complaining about a decision that he made. I can't even one instance of significant coverage, as per WP:SIGCOV and his career doesn't seem to have reached a level for WP:ANYBIO. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Agnello

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

Non-notable producer and recording engineer with no RS coverage outside mentions in passing. Mottezen (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gulong ng Palad (1977 TV series)

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

Well, it appears to be not notable, there are no further sources to establish its notability. Fails WP:GNG, I think. ----Rdp060707|talk 09:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 09:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 09:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of programs aired by Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation (and salt maybe) as per nom. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs aired by Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs aired by Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation, literally fails WP:TVSHOW. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- There has been bulk nomination of many TV series from the Philippines lately. This one was around for a very long time, but shares a name with a remake and will have few online media sources about the original, so I can see why it's hard to find contemporary news sources. That said, there are tons of results in Google Books and Google Scholar for it, which clearly indicates its notability. It is listed as the first radio soap in the Philippines: [19]. This journal article notes that it was one of the longest running radio serials in the Philippines: [20]. The 1986 book The Philippine Worldview asserts that this series was the first TV series in the Philippines to move away from episodic drama form to greater serialization: [21]. There is considerable discussion on Google Scholar of the series' popularity. And this is only searching in English. This has a very strong claim to notability and it should not be glossed over in this series of mass nominations. matt91486 (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per Matt's reasoning above. Koikefan (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:TVSHOW with sources presented by Matt. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to the added sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of male detective characters

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

Also nominated:

These unnecessary gender intersection articles duplicate Fictional detectives, but are gendered for totally unexplained reasons. They are also largely unreferenced or use poor sources. Should be deleted as violating the criteria for lists as well as WP:INDISCRIMINATE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment." Here's a list of clues demonstrating that WP:LISTN is passed:

Feminism in Women's Detective Fiction
Queens of Crime: American and British Female Detective Novels
Sherlock's Sisters: The British Female Detective, 1864-1913
The Fictional Female Detective - American Style
The Penguin Book of Victorian Women in Crime – Forgotten Cops and Private Eyes from the Time of Sherlock Holmes
The Woman Detective: Gender & Genre
Gender and Representation in British ‘Golden Age’ Crime Fiction
Twentieth Century Crime Fiction: Gender, Sexuality and the Body
Gender Bending Detective Fiction
Men Alone: Masculinity, Individualism, and Hard-boiled Fiction
Hard & Soft: The Male Detective's Body in Contemporary European Crime Fiction
The Eating Detective: Food and Masculinity in Twentieth Century Crime Fiction
Detecting Men: Masculinity and the Hollywood Detective Film

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there suggests that a list of detectives should be separated along gender lines. Detective is not an inherently gendered occupation. Even gentleman detectives have a female equivalent of lady detectives. The sources you brought up would be a solid basis for a Gender in crime fiction article along the lines of Gender in horror films, but not related to this discussion. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear" My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Lean delete~~ - The subject of the lists (male/female fictional detectives) are discussed, but I see no benefit in duplicating our existing list of fictional detectives by creating two lists segregated by gender. The topic does deserve to be covered, but as a prose article on gender in detective fiction, not a list - and I note that Andrew's list of coverage is dominated by articles that focus on this concept, rather than focusing on a gendered list of fictional detectives. BilledMammal (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no separate list of fictional detectives. "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional detectives is the separate list of fictional detectives. (Though perhaps meriting a name change, as there seems to be some confusion about it...) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the primary author of that page says emphatically and repeatedly on its talk page that "Becoming a list article wasn't my original motive of creating this article ... NO, THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LIST!". And so that's why its title does not include the word "list". Andrew🐉(talk) 12:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OWN. Just because you do not want it to be a list does not make it so. As it is, this article is clearly a list and detective fiction is the article about the genre. There need not be two separate prose articles on detective fiction and fictional detectives._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm and BilledMammal: But if the notability of the fictional detective is not disputed, why are we discussiong a deletion here rather than a merge? Daranios (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what? The list is totally WP:OR. The female list does have a few properly sourced entries, but they are not bluelinks, so I'd be surprised if even one of them merited merging. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: Like, merging at least all blue-linked entries? Navigation is one of the three recognized main purposes of lists on Wikipedia. The lists currently may have some entries which are not warranted, but they do fullfill that purpose. How do is Wikipedia improved by simply removing that without ever considering WP:AtD? Daranios (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; merge the appropriate entries into the previously discussed article, and rename it "List of Detectives" or similar. BilledMammal (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of sexuality and gender related deletion discussions. Daranios (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep These lists were nominated for the gender distinction being unneccesary. This would basically apply to the Category:Fictional females and Category:Fictional males and all sub-categories and contained lists, so it is a much more general question than what we are currently discussing. I think we should not discuss that here, but ask the participants of Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender studies for their opinion. I expect they would be the experts on how it makes sense to organize such content on Wikipedia.

I have a different set of arguments about these individual two lists, but find the other issue of higher importance. Daranios (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"This would basically apply to the Category:Fictional females and Category:Fictional males and all sub-categories and contained lists" No, it wouldn't. That is very much not the case. For example, whether something is a god or goddess can indeed be defining, as their gender is tied to a lot of symbolic things. Similarly, whether someone is a prince or princess can be defining. There is no "detective" and "detectivess", it's just "detective". This is not a one size fits all situation and does not need a broad ruling. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: Ok, you are probably right that there are instances where gender is more defining than in this case. Then again, if the distinction between male and female detectives is not defining, then why are there whole books about the female detective, as listed above? But even if it were as you say, what you suggest would not apply to everything within, but still to much, if not most of what's in Category:Fictional females and Category:Fictional males. Like, as Dream Focus said, most ...by occupation categories. The ...by medium categories. And more. Or, to look at it another way, who should decide in which instances gender is defining and in which it isn't? You? The editors? Secondary sources? Would we need to find secondary sources which say exactly "gender is a defining characteristic of the detective"? Because the existence of whole books about the female detective does not seem to convince you, or does it? So, again, I don't think this should be decided here. Daranios (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would apply to much if not most of what's in those categories. Which were, largely, created only recently by a few users who seemed to be totally unfamiliar with defining characteristics. Just because they exist doesn't mean they are the product of long and careful consensus. This is not a massive controversy, I think most people can agree that something like "mechanic" is not an inherently gender-based job. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: If it affects many categories, then I feel confirmed in my concerns: it should not be decided in the form of a singular deletion discussion, but in a general discussion if and when distinctions by gender should be done and when they shouldn't. I don't see what you mean by "were, largely, created only recently by a few users who seemed to be totally unfamiliar with defining characteristics". Our list here is from 2013, Category:Fictional males is from 2009, Category:Fictional female mechanics from 2019, Category:Fictional female engineers from 2016, Category:Fictional female detectives from 2014, and Category:Fictional females by occupation from 2016. Seems a broad mixture. Daranios (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:VAGUEWAVE at WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which does not apply to this list, is not a convincing deletion rationale. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both of these, and any other the same person nominates because they don't like the gender divided list. Politicians, actors, athletes, and many others are divided by gender on Wikipedia. No valid reason thus given to delete this. Valid list, plenty of blue links, adds in navigation, logical grouping. If it works as a category, then its fine for a list. Dream Focus 18:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list provided by Andrew is compelling. Mukt (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions, nominated by the same person for the same reason:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_14#Category:Fictional_female_ninja Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_14#Category:Fictional_sportspeople_by_gender Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_female_supervillains_(4th_nomination) Dream Focus 00:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of female supervillains

AfDs for this article:

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

Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE due to its total lack of inclusion criteria. There is also no context to indicate why specifically female supervillains would merit a list when we already have Category:Lists of DC Comics supervillains and Category:Lists of Marvel Comics supervillains which include both male and female villains. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having just done the detectives, I'll let someone else do the supervillainesses. After all, per WP:BEFORE, it's really the nominator's job to look for sources and they certainly exist. I especially like "“People keep giving me rings, but I think a small death ray might be more practical”: Women and Mad Science in Steampunk Comics".

The real issue here is that this is the fourth nomination and so WP:DELAFD applies, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last nomination was 7 years ago, an amount of time during which a newborn can become a walking, talking child. To call that "repeatedly nominating a page", stretches the limits of absurdity and common sense.

The issue here is whether a list is merited, instead of an article about gender in superhero comics. This article, a mere regurgitation of names, explains nothing about the importance of women in comics. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I said the last time this went to AFD, this is a valid navigational list, every thing listed having their own article where they are called super villains and their gender mentioned as female. Category:Female supervillains exist, and shows there are categories for three different major comic book companies for their female supervillains plus additional entries that don't fit in any sub-categories. The categories mentioned by the nominator, group things based on which super hero or team they are the enemy of, which is actually wrong since the villains often target more than one hero. Those two categories only list lists showing information about various enemies. As for why divide them by gender in a list, well, we do that with female actors, athletes, politicians, and everything else. Enter in Category:Female into a search and see how many suggestions come up. Dream Focus 11:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:VAGUEWAVE at WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which does not apply to this list, is not a convincing deletion rationale. Jclemens (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Inclusion criteria is clear in the title, female supervillains. —¿philoserf? (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew. desmay (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel like it's the kind of list that's spun out to improve readability (not breaking the prose) on related pages like Superhero. Likewise, I would approve of a more draconian clean up, such as to remove all unsourced, non-article entries, and then do a quick check to ensure that the criteria is in the lede of the rest (ie. female and villain) so it isn't bloated with say, 'superheroines who went rogue for one issue because of mind control'. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions, nominated by the same person for the same reason:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_14#Category:Fictional_female_ninja Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_14#Category:Fictional_sportspeople_by_gender Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_male_detective_characters#List_of_male_detective_characters Dream Focus 00:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very clear inclusion criteria.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Moved the article to Mineral Resources Limited as per sources added on the article. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 08:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mineral Resources

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

This article fails WP:GNG and doesn't meet WP:CORP. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 06:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 06:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 06:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as an important mining company in Western Australia at the moment due to size and extent of operations. AFD seems a bit strong for such an obvious keep. JarrahTree 06:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is a listed public company that operates a number of iron ore and lithium mines in Western Australia, and other mining-related businesses in the Pilbara, the source of most of Australia's iron ore. Further, it is clear, even from the references cited in the article (independent sources, including government publications) that the company passes both WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orm family

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

No evidence of`notability. WP is not a genealogical dictionary. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if individual family members are notable, there is insufficient evidence that the family is a notable entity. It certainly pales in comparison with the families of Kardashian, Adams and Unser. :) MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and MrsSnoozyTurtle.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual U

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

Non-notable video game that has not developed beyond a stub in the 9 years since it's creation. BEFORE searches return only one piece of non-trivial coverage. No suitable merger targets or sufficient content to merge either. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, aside from the GameSpot article, the closest thing to a source I could find was a two-sentence long mention in a book, not enough to be considered SIGCOV. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NVG. IceWelder [✉] 06:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:SIGCOV criteria. Wario-Man ^talk 13:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 09:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raipur-Bhilai-Durg Tri City Metro area

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

Raipur - Bhilai - Durg Tricity is not an official metro area. These are seperate Urban agglomeration as per official records. Dhaneesh 💙 Ram 05:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks legal recognition to meet WP:GEOLAND. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Reversion to a pre-COI editor's work and updating has mitigated the issues and identified coverage that meets NCORP. (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists

AfDs for this article:

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

I cannot find substantial coverage of this organization on its own (though it gets plenty of mentions because it offers a certification). Previous AfDs ended no consensus in 2006 (evenly split keep/delete) and delete in 2008; it was remade in 2009. This page is a PROMO disaster. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Pretty notable organization, especially in Anti-Money Laundry and Anti-Terrorist Financing profession. Its certification CFE is the most recognized in the industry. However, I do agree in its current state it doesn't fit with Wikipedia guidelines. So if someone can rewrite this and get rid of the promo content then it's strong keep.Kazuha1029 (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As Kazuha says, it is pretty notable, even if it does not get much mainstream attention. However, coverage of some of its activities can be found, and I believe they are sufficient to meet WP:NCORP. For instance, WWF Collaberation, anti slavery activities, acquisition by Becker. Worth noting the coverage of the first two is quite extensive, and either one of them would likely be enough to classify ACAMS as notable. BilledMammal (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal, go ahead and add some of that to the page—it's ready to take more sourced content now (I reverted to the pre-2015 revision with some updated material) and I'm probably about to withdraw the nomination. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is notable. I started it in 2009 with this version. That got puffed up a bit to this version (e.g. "for-profit" removed from lead description, plug for founders added), then with these changes made in 2015 by Kourtneymccarty all the sourced content was scrapped and replaced by material from the website. Probably best to go back to the 2009 version, then maybe update it. But it may be hard to stop it deteriorating again. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, Kourtney McCarty appears to have been ACAMS's Director of Marketing ([22]). Also wow she wiped out a much stronger article with promotional material. I'm probably about to withdraw the nomination and restore the January 2015 sourced revision. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would go back further - the January 2015 has some puffy stuff that is not supported by the sources. e.g. these changes in 2013. Maybe the article should be protected from IPs and brand-new single-purpose editors. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to source the founding of the org and a 2007 membership stat to newspaper articles. They got a lot of press in Florida, where the founder lived, in the early years. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That looks a lot better. I think you can just close the AfD as withdrawn, since there were no "delete" votes. But some sort of protection would be good. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) AshishKaushikAMNSIndia (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Essar Group

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

I propose to merge ESSAR Steel India limited into this article, As this is a part of the ESSAR Company only. So it is quite difficult to make a difference in them. AshishKaushikAMNSIndia (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AshishKaushikAMNSIndia (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AshishKaushikAMNSIndia, from your rationale above, you are suggesting a merge rather than deletion, so AfD seems the wrong forum. Better to close this AfD and let the Merge discussion (whose templates you have placed on the two articles) take its course? AllyD (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A discussion about a merge / redirect to Mumuni Bawumia can be had after this debate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mariama Bawumia

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

no evidence of notability .Obituaries, but there are nno specific accomplishments behind them--except that she is the mother of the vice-president . The rule is NOT INHERITED. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 05:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 05:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 05:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Kindly keep this article because the biography is notable and verifiable and also the mother of the vice president of Ghana.Jwale2 (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thats exactly the point--we keep spouses of head sof state, and sometimes their children; we sometimes will keep the spouse of someone in the office of vice president if there's sufficient well-sourced material. We don't keep other relatives on the basis of their relationship, unless there's independent notability , as is possible with the parents of very famous people. For example, we could probably justify it for the parents of Kwame Nkrumah, but we haven't even made redirects from them. I don't think the current vice-president of this article is even remotely in the same category. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I also think this article should be kept because she is notable in Ghana to have received a wide coverage before and after her death. She was known to be among the first Northern region females to have gone to school. She was also known when the vice president wished her a 'happy birthday'. So kindly keep the article. Thanks daSupremo ^[talk] 22:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I vote keep because her death and her being the mother of the Vice-president of Ghana has made a lot of headways this few days. If she wasn't notable when alive her death has made her notable considering the number of publications speaking about her now.Owula kpakpo (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google Search does reveal hits from major news agencies in Ghana. I agree with User:DGG that the notability criteria is NOT INHERITED, but with this much national attention and media coverage around their person, it's hard to argue that they're not notable in their own rights. --Masssly (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no in-depth and independent coverage about her. All the sources about her are associated with Mahamudu Bawumia. I don't think so it makes her notable for being a mother of Mahamudu Bawumia. Mehmood.Husain (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "to be among the first Northern region females to have gone to school." is not notability . One could argue that if she were the very first, and it could be proven, there might be, but "one of the first" to do anything at all is always meaningless puffery. That the mother of someone is notable because their son wished them happy birthday is utterly ludicrous. People dying does not make them notable if they weren't notable previously. People who have for any reason just become notable in the last few days are unlike to remain a subject of encyclopedic interest. If there were any doubt that she might possibly be notable , thearguments above in this afd discussion prove otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked through the sources and did a Gsearch but everything is about the funeral itself and not the subject of the article. No mentions of any achievements, even small local-interest ones. The first-student bit doesn't indicate notability either. The rationale of the keep votes seem like they're unfamiliar with WP:RECENTISM, and I think the mention of her passing on Mahamudu Bawumia's article is sufficient for her inclusion in WP. Estheim (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as significant news coverage exists. Peter303x (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This brings back memories of the massive problem we had with supercentenarian articles about utterly non-notable people. So what, she went to school and lived into her 80s? WP:HOLE applies, the news coverage here is so thoroughly routine as to be, if anything, an argument against notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to the article on her husband, the politician Mumuni Bawumia. There is nothing about her to make her individually notable. There's no reason we couldn't include much of the content on her in a family or personal life section in the article on her husband.4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Weak sourcing with no notability. Does not pass GNG. ––FormalDude talk 21:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per The Blade of the Northern Lights. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Riverview killings

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

WP:NOTNEWS. As tragic as they are, familicides happen literally every day on this planet, and this incident doesn't seem all that different from the others. Many, if not all of the sources are local, and it doesn't appear to have been extensively covered by national media sources. Just a run-of-the-mill, ordinary crime. Love of Corey (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to the nomination, this particular crime has received national and international coverage. International coverage includes the Slovenian Dnevnik, Mexican Milenio, French 45secondes, Peruvian El Comercio, The South African, British The Times. Ignoring Florida media, we have many US based publications covering this, include: NY Daily News on the application of a "stand your ground" defense here, Daily Beast, CNN on the murderer questioning his surviving son at trial, Washington Post on the adoption of the child, and People magazine with a similar profile. From a perusal of the coverage, the trial itself was highly publicized and not routine.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like national coverage is automatic with Florida due to Florida Sunshine Law (and no, not because of Florida Man). I see New York Times, USA Today, CNN, Washington Post cover Florida-related news items like it's nothing regardless of its importance. I would tread lightly on stating it should be kept due to "national and international coverage" and more on the WP policies. – The Grid (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy is WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. Coverage here meets WP:GEOSCOPE (heck, covered in Slovenia), WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:DIVERSE. Most domestic murders are not notable, and most do not receive significant coverage. This particular case, perhaps due to the televised trial, sordid details, and self-representation by the perpetrator (who actually questioned his son, whom he stabbed) received an extremely high level of coverage as evidence by any search for "Ronnie Oneal".--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per The Grid's comment; we have a lot of Florida murder stories because of their sunshine law, and it takes little to no time to translate a story from there to fill column inches or a 'trending story' feature, and it's highly doubtful that Dnevnik, The South African or Milenio really added much more from the wires they got them from. Just because a story appears in an international publication doesn't indicate its true notability unless it's full and sustained coverage. Nate • (chatter) 18:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This IS sustained coverage. From the news sources given in the article it actually got more coverage in 2021 than in 2018, and the news articles offer in-depth information about the trial and aftermath; for example, the CNN article mentioning that Ronnie IV had to cross-examine his own son, and Tampa Bay Times and NY Daily News mentioning the use of the stand-your-ground rule. --Coolperson177 (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we can say that this case has seen enough attention to be classified as notable. It's ridiculous how small crimes in the United Kingdom always even if it doesn't get to much attention gets to stay but ones in the United States always has one person trying to erase it. This case has enough information and it should be deemed worthy to stay as a wiki page. – 11S117 (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added more references to the article and per Eostrix, it seems to meet WP:SIGCOV. --Coolperson177 (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Trans-Neptunian object#In fiction. Sandstein 11:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-Neptunian objects in fiction

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

Oh boy. In the process of cleaning up Template:Astronomical locations in fiction, this probably is the most bizarre entry. The concept is super niche and not mentioned in any reliable source; this (tiny) list that fails WP:GNG/WP:LIST is also very poorly referenced (to primary sources anyway). Needles to say, the term Trans-Neptunian not only does not have its own entry in any reference work on SF (see below for what I reviewed), but is not even mentioned in any of them, outside of a single passing sentence in "Science fact and science fiction an encyclopedia by Brian Stableford"...

Reviewed works:

The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction aka http://sf-encyclopedia.com/search-results

Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction - Brian Ash (index search only)

Brave new words the Oxford dictionary of science fiction by Jeff Prucher

Encyclopedia Of Science Fiction (Library Movements) by Don DAmmassa

The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction by Mann, George

The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy (index search only)

The New encyclopedia of science fiction by Gunn, James E

Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia by Brian Stableford

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. A part of me wishes otherwise, but the list doesn't meet any of our criteria to exist. Further, it doesn't make sense; if we want an article to cover fictional sub-planetary objects within the Sol system, there is no reason why we should restrict ourselves to trans-neptunian ones, as it is unlikely the list would be sufficiently large to need a split. The article also seems to entirely consist of OR, with this including both the elements on the list, and the information provided with them. With all that said, I will note that I don't consider the search for the name to be conclusive; there is no reason why coverage of this topic or a sufficiently similar one has to be under that name, and I would actually be surprised if it was. BilledMammal (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I don't believe the information is appropriately sourced for a merger, but no reason why we can't redirect this to Solar System in fiction. BilledMammal (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The nomination tells plainly that it's engaged in cleanup but, per WP:NOTCLEANUP, this not the purpose of AfD. In constructing the template in question, the earlier editors obviously decided on a scheme of dividing up the solar system, working outwards from the sun. This naturally then takes you to Pluto, the Kuiper belt, Oort cloud and the other outer reaches. If the nominator has some better scheme then they should present it fully, rather than selectively trying to knock out pieces of the whole. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Solar System in fiction as a WP:ATD. This can easily fit within that purview._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Andrew Davidson makes a good point. Running dragnets through the Wikipedia looking for perfectly good articles based on careful, organized, and dedicated volunteer work to delete is probably not a good way for this project to move forward. It's not really what AfD is supposed to be used for. It's discouraging to editors who create articles like this, also. Not a super great approach to making encyclopedias, in my opinion.

On the merits, I do note that we have an article Trans-Neptunian object. It is a wide-spread and notable concept in planetary astronomy. Googling "trans-neptunian" brings about 316,00 results. There are scads of scientific books with "Trans-Neptunian" in their title. "trans neptunian objects" brings up 10,400 results in google scholar.

And naturally it's used a lot in science fiction too. We would expect that, but we know it for sure because somebody did the work of making this article and collecting some instances of this. Thank you, article creators, good work! It's not the biggest article, but it's big enough. It's not much ref'd, but after all the works themselves are the refs, I think that's pretty much how it works for summaries of films and books and all.

Taken together, this indicates that of course the subject is notable and is worthwhile having an article on. The rest is details. We can expand the article and add more refs in the fullness of time. pictures, infoboxes, so forth. But not if the article is destroyed. Right?

Whatever happens to this one article happens, but closer, on the meta-issue, pattern issue...there is a lot I could say, but I better not. I'll have to leave that to you, administrator. There's a lot going on here. What I did say I tried to be walk the line of being both straightforward and polite, but I guess I failed and nominator stood on his rights and asked me to refactor (his prerogative, and fine). So I have. Herostratus (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Trans-Neptunian object#In fiction (with a redirect hatnote to Pluto in fiction). As far as I can see, only the first two entries in the Literature section qualify as more than minor plot elements. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "Solar System in fiction" - per BilledMammal. This topic does not appear to have gained any coverage and keep votes are neither policy-based nor particularly civil. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as suggested by several. User:Piotrus mades a compelling and uncontested case this topic is not discussed (as a subject matter) in what one would normally consider the most reliable reference sources in this narrow field of study. That pretty much settles it. Sources may exist in literary review and popular culture media discussing (or even listing) examples of Trans-Neptunian objects or concepts in fiction. I'm largely unsympathetic to any persuasion wikipedians should make deletion decisions based on what previous template editors decided, but do agree there should be a place for sourced material. BusterD (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Light Merge to Trans-Neptunian object#In fiction - There is very little to actually merge, since the sourcing being used here is almost non-existent, and many of the examples are not really notable examples of Trans-Neptunian objects playing a substantial role in a notable piece of fiction. But, as Clarityfiend stated, a couple of the entries do seem to be major enough instances to mention, and the main Trans-Neptunian object article makes more sense to me as the target than the more general Solar System in fiction. Regardless of which target is chosen for the Redirect/Merge, though, the fact remains that the topic in question fails WP:LISTN and should not exist as an independent list article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After We Fell

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

After We Fell

This is either an unreleased film, or a film without Reception information. It does not satisfy film notability guidelines. A draft was submitted and declined three times in July. In September, a draft was submitted at about the same time as an article was created, so that the article cannot be moved back into draft space.

There is a schedule of release information in various countries, some prior to 6 September. However, it also states that release will be on 30 September. There are no reviews and no reception information for the film's release in other countries.

An analysis of the references shows nothing significant:

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant
1	Soundtracklist.com	View blocked by anti-malware filter, but would not be significant coverage anyway	N	N
2	Deadline.com	States that film is being released directly to streaming.	N	N
3	Deadline.com	States that film went into production. We knew that.	N	N
4	IMDB	Release schedule	N	N
5	Netflixlife	Release schedule	N	N

There is nothing that constitutes independent significant coverage.

Some random editor will probably state that the film has completed production, and that films that have completed production are considered notable. This is a common but silly misreading of a badly written portion of the film notability guidelines. It reasonably divides films into three classes:

1. Those that have not begun production, which are not notable.
2. Those that have begun or completed production, but have not been released.
3. Those that have been released.

The guideline then goes on to say:

Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.

This film has not been released. There is nothing in the advance coverage to the effect that the production is notable. The version that is in article space should be deleted, and the version that is in draft space can be left in draft space until it is ready for article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Assuredly. It's been released and it's going to more countries this weekend, including Canada. Clearly a notable film. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@All Hallow's Wraith: That rationale has no grounding in Wikipedia policy. The advance coverage does not suggest it's a notable film. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draftify as WP:TOOSOON. Wait and see how much coverage this gets. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A film does not need to have been released yet for it to have enough notability to be an article. But Box Office Mojo has box office numbers for the film so its obviously already been released. There also seems to be enough citations to satisfy notability.JOJ ^Hutton 23:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jojhutton: Quantity of sources is irrelevant. Five of them are shown above to be irrelevant. The additional two that have appeared are brief mentions. My view is unchanged; this should still be draftified or deleted. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The policy based arguments strongly suggest delete, but there's no consensus as of yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The movie has received significant coverage and satisfy WP:NFILM -GorgonaJS (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GorgonaJS: Would you mind supporting your assertions with sources to show this subject passes WP:GNG? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd that so far all the 'keep' comments have had no basis in policy or evidence. That's why these discussions should never be considered a vote. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM --John B123 (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of English cricketers to 1771. Consensus seems to be that this is worth merging and redirecting. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Brandon (cricketer)

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

Fails WP:NCRIC - first-class cricket was not established at the time he played. So little is known about him that it will be impossible to write a biography with any detail. The Ashley-Cooper source is available online here and says simply that he was a batsman from Dartford - literally we have five words on him. We simply don't have enough to write anything very much about a club cricketer. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have, of course, more than five words in other sources, and I see reference to another match not mentioned in the article. The Underwood source has more detail, including that he was a constable. St Anselm (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed – see below. Weak keep per StAnselm and also because this passes NCRIC as it is written. NCRIC doesn't mention first-class cricket – the qualifier is having played at the highest international or domestic level. The three games he played in are listed in the ACS guide which signifies that they were the highest domestic level at the time. I was a little doubtful about GNG on first reading but there are three sources in the article and another one StAnselm has found so it may have the necessary coverage. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per No Great Shaker and StAnselm.4meter4 (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Subject appears to fail GNG, so the keep votes are utterly unconvincing. Relisting for more thorough discussion not focused on whether subject meets some arbitrary criteria but whether there are enough reliable sources to write an article which satisfies basic criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing sysop please note. This relisting comment is out of order. Relisting is done impartially to stimulate discussion, not to try and influence editors one way or the other. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@No Great Shaker: I'm sorry, but there is long-standing community de facto agreement that passing an SNG but failing GNG is not enough. Therefore, this warrants further discussion, not only because of that but because the keeps have not presented a single source to show GNG, despite their assertions that this subject is notable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the point of being the person to relist is to neutrally encourage more discussion. Rather than attempting to undermine people, which you're relist there clearly does. Fine to relist it, but the relisting comment is inappropriate. You could have just relisted it, and left your opinion as a regular vote/comment. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Joseph. Three things I'd like to say to RandomCanadian. First, you relisted despite two editors contributing to the discussion in the previous two days so, discussion active, why relist? If you want to vote delete then by all means do so in the normal way – without going out of process. Second, you claim that the keeps have not presented a single source. There are already three in the article and StAnselm has taken the trouble to find another one. The source I've given doesn't mention the player, of course, but it does confirm the matches he is associated with were top-class at the time. Third, for the benefit of everyone who reads this case, please define "arbitrary criteria" and provide examples. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is one of the worst relistings I've ever seen. St Anselm (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the nom, I'd like to add two things:

If there are other sources that show a GNG level of sourcing then could details be added to the article. As it's written, the article says "little is known of him personally". I don't have access to the Underdown book, so perhaps someone who does could add the detail that it has;
WP:NCRIC was rewritten. The hyperlink from the words "highest international or domestic level" makes it perfectly clear that Brandon's cricket can not come close to meeting NCRIC - there is a definition of what we consider to the top-class. In the past it was deliberately written in order to allow a known sock master to promote their own agenda wrt 18th century cricketers, hence the proliferation of articles like this. As a result we're dependent on the GNG. Unless Underdown has a lot more (in which case the start of the sentence which references him needs to be changed, as clearly we will know a tonne more about him personally) or unless Waghorn has something other than a scorecard, I'm really not sure this comes close to GNG requirements.

But I could be wrong. That's one reason why, after checking everything I could, I nominated the article for deletion. Perhaps requesting that people at NSPORTS take a look would be a useful next step? Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) – Blue Square Thing, I must apologise. I missed the hyperlink. So, in essence, any English cricketer before 1890 must meet GNG? Anyway, I agree that this player doesn't meet NCRIC after all and I've amended my suggestion above. It seems we have four sources but obviously the Astley-Cooper one you highlighted has minimal information and much more will be needed. I think a request to NSPORTS is a good idea. Thanks for the clarification. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ regardless of my feelings about the relisting, they haven't played in a notable official cricket match, which is what WP:NCRIC suggests would make them notable. As mentioned above, this was rewritten a few months ago to be more explicit about who is likely to be notable or not. And I don't think that with the sources listed, they pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was involved heavily in the updating of the cricket guidelines, more specifically to judge notability on more recent 20th and 21st century players, but also on the more historic players, for whom the guidelines previously were skewed for an editor(s) who had specific interest in creating articles on players from this era. In this case we actually have more information on the man that we have on other previously players that have been discussed (such as his occupation, and that he played in Dartford and Kent in the 1750s), however coverage is still slightly limited. I'd say id lean to Merge and redirect to List of English cricketers to 1771 where he is listed, perhaps with the extra information we have found added to his section in the list. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of English cricketers to 1771 changing my vote, since this is a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of English cricketers to 1771 per Rugbyfan22 and Joseph2302 (also a changed vote). That is the best way to deal with a case like this because it seems unlikely that anyone will be able to check the given sources for GNG strength. If more information and additional sources should be found in future, the redirect can be reversed. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A7 by Hut 8.5.(non-admin closure) --MuZemike 21:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Marco

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

Does not meet WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO. Largely unsourced and the sources provided are forums/chats. Unable to find anything outside of their YouTube channel. S0091 (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. S0091 (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 09:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WinZO

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

Seems to be written to promote the company. Lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of socks/SPAs in the article's history suggest the nom is correct in their assessment. The coverage is WP:MILL-like, and I don't think it is sufficient to meet WP:NCORP/WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 09:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Publishers

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

A publisher would count as a company. And this one doesn't have enough sources to qualify for WP:NCORP. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gnews is mainly about books published by this company and lacking coverage of the company itself. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Stewart Cowley. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terran Trade Authority

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

A messy, very poorly referenced page that can't decide if it is about a fictional setting or an (art)book series. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. All I got in my search for sources is a passing mention in a single academic article: [23] and some fansites. ~~No redirect target I can think of, given the author (Stewart Cowley) doesn't even have a page.~~ If someone thinks the author is notable and stubs it, this could be rescued through WP:SOFTDELETE and redirect there, with the list of books copied there, perhaps. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Update: I came to the conclusion the author is notable and stubbed an entry for him, so redirecting is an option now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe the alternative suggested in the nomination is exactly what should happen. The subject here is both the fictional setting for a series of books and an associated RPG and the unofficial name for the book series itself. From what I can see, Cowley ever gave his series an official umbrella "franchise" name, mostly because he saw them as being loosely interconnected but not linear. That his works have been the subject of academic study and coverage like this (which arguably contributes to the notability of the subject here anyway) is enough for me to think its the author we should be covering first, rather than his work. That said, I think the subject probably just scrapes by. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stalwart111 Good find! Maybe this could be rescued after all, if we can dig up more sourcing like this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The other obvious one is this one. Whether you consider it coverage by the author (quoting Jonn Serrie) or coverage from Jonn Serrie himself, I think it helps to establish notability. A work important enough to have inspired the work of other notable artists (in a different field) is helpful, I think. He's not just listing a dozen different books he liked to read when he was younger; "To this day, I still use them in that fashion.". St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[24] only mentions TTA twice in passing, and one of those is in the caption? It's mostly about a musician who cites TTA in passing as one of his inspirations. I am afraid that one fails WP:SIGCOV. I hope we are not running out of good sources... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the caption isn't helpful, I don't think. It's not really a mention "in passing" though; its the only inspiration he cites and he describes its place in his creative process (then and now). That said, while it might not rise to the level of significant coverage, in and of itself, its substantiation of the idea that this is an important work among creatives in the science fiction space. It's certainly not a cut-and-dry case and I totally understand why its here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the article survives - or even if this is merged - I agree this (that TTA inspired this artist) is a relevant fact that can be referenced. I am just not seeing it as very useful in establishing notability. On the other hand, we started with zero good sources, you found one, so just one more that meets SIGCOV (and is independent and reliable) would meet my criteria for what is required to meet GNG... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One review doesn't cut it. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stewart Cowley. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend I just stubbed the author's bio, so now we can consider redirecting this too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've been trying to find some sources for Stewart Cowley, to see if we could rescue something here by writing a bio for him. He is notable, as he has a bio in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. I've stubbed an entry for him. So now we have a plausible redirect/merge targets, allowing us to invoke WP:SOFTDELETE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good solution. I believe TTA is just notable but keeping something of marginal notability is less preferable to retaining that content in an article about a clearly notable subject. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not clean up. Artw (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No straw man please, nobody is saying AFD is cleanup. Your comment therefore is not relevant to this discussion at all. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The topic currently lacks sources to meet WP:GNG. Even if there turn out to be more sources, they'd be better used in the author's article until such a time where it needs to be split out. TTN (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.