Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 27	September 29 >

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 redirect to Adelaide Plains Football League. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamley Bridge Football Club

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

I don't know if there is a clearcut answer for these kinds of village-level clubs when balancing "quality/merit" of the article subject against potential coverage is village newspapers, but the main print source that is used in this article and other village football clubs is the self-published book by Peter Lines. Otherwise there are a few score results to village newspapers. This is the local football club in a village (Hamley Bridge) of 700 people, which plays against the nearby villages. According to the Australian census, males between 15-35 are 12% of the population, so this estimates to around 80 prime-aged people who could realistically play in this team. We would never consider having articles for random high school sports teams (sporting merit would not be high enough), when most high schools have 1000 or so prime-aged students. Should we have articles on the village sports team just because there are weekly results in the village newspaper? I don't think we should Bumbubookworm (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This club is not notable. --Bduke (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adelaide Plains Football League, as per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adelaide Plains Football League.4meter4 (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Editors have achieved a rough consensus against deletion. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Hoffman

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

Actor who does not satisfy acting notability or general notability. Article has been created both in draft space and in article space, which is commonly done to game the system by making it impossible to move the article into draft space. It does not prevent nominating the article for deletion.

The subject only has one listed major role, and that is deficient with respect to acting notability in two respects. First, multiple major roles are required. Second, the film has not yet been released. A review of the references shows that they are puff pieces stating that the movie is being made and that the trailer has been released.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Newsweek	A puff piece about Hoffman	Yes	No	No. See WP:NEWSWEEK.
2	Hollywood Reporter	Announcement of casting	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
3	AV Club	Announcement of trailer	Not really	No
4	People magazine	Announcement of trailer	Not really	No	Yes	No
5	CNN Entertainment	Announcement of trailer	Not really	No		No
6	Yahoo	A promotional piece	Not really	No		No

The draft can be left in draft space. He will probably be notable soon enough, but it is still too soon. The only problem with redirecting the article to the film is that the film shouldn't have an article yet either. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Under what premise should the film not have an article? It's a major motion picture with an objectively notable cast, crew and director? CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is frivolous. He’s the lead in a major motion picture by a prominent director, there will be s ton of coverage before the end of the year. I found the AFD because I was curious about the actor, and others will be, too. If the world was going to end tomorrow, fine, he wouldn’t qualify, but there’s no reason other than LARPing to have an AFD instead of waiting a few weeks for the article to organically develop. THF (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too soon. Delete this one and keep the one in draft. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify I have no doubt the subject meets WP:N and will in the future...but at this point we should wait for better sources to germinate before forming a mainspace article. Nate • (chatter) 23:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Licorice Pizza. KidAd • SPEAK 00:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's too different from his father to be redirected to his page, but he's separately notable to the film as an actor himself despite his inexperience to be redirected to Licorice Pizza. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, in addition to the similar situation at Michael Gandolfini. Rusted AutoParts 15:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Difference is, Michael had plenty of roles before MSoN so they have been written about before that; this is the subject's literal first role. Right now we only have several '250 words wrapped around a YouTube embed of a trailer' articles to source this article; that is in no way acceptable for even the shortest of stubs to be sourced. Nate • (chatter) 22:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this deletion nonsense per WP:IAR. Come on, people. This is a speedy keep. Many mainstream sources, obvious notability. The nomination is ridiculous and tendentious. Please try to be constructive contributors to the encyclopedia, and try to expand the article instead of vandalizing the project. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly how it works, namely the way we collectively decide it works. That is often by reversing process crap instead of going through undue effort. Apparently, there are now cleanup bots restoring bad noms so the next step is a speedy keep and admonishing the nominator to be more careful.[1]

Comment I'm always exhausted to note this, but we have no deadline on how and when an article should be created. I'd rather have a great article formed over time by consensus than a poor one which is basically an Entertainment Tonight trailer summary screaming 'look it's that guy's...son!' like we have now. The Hollywood press is not a teacher requiring us to have 2,000 words about a subject by November 26 or they'll fail us. Nate • (chatter) 20:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd additionally like to point out that the Daily Pageviews showed that the page was viewed 5,440 times yesterday. Source: [2]. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with THF's reasoning. B.KaiEditor (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. ~ HAL333 03:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, even if it is "too soon" it's so by perhaps a week. — Mainly 16:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Johnson

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

Fails WP:NJOURN. Lacks notability and sources. Only source I can find is CBC. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notable in BC but notable for Wikipedia? Unsure, although, CBC is a reliable source here and here. Still looking to see if we have enough for an article. Lightburst (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While the CBC is a reliable source in principle, you can never, ever stake any journalist's notability on content self-published by her own employer, such as her staff profile or the outlet's own announcements of its own staffing or programming changes. You always need coverage about her in independent sources, namely media outlets that don't employ her. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was poorly sourced. Did some digging and added citations for the awards. At its current form, I think the subject passes WP:JOURNALIST: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews;"--WomenProj (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep I have found more sources related to awards, or at least nominations, e.g. 1, 2, and there is more biographical and career information that could be added from the Georgia Straight article. Per WP:JOURNALIST#4, the frequency and scale of the award nominations and wins seem like sufficient "significant critical attention", or per #1, that she is sufficiently "regarded as an important figure" to support a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC) update !vote, per Bearcat - Beccaynr (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To be fair, I do see the problem as of the time of nomination, because the article was written semi-advertorially and unsourced — but she (a) actually does have a nationalized notability claim as a past host of a national network show on CBC Television, and even more importantly Gemini Award and/or Canadian Screen Award nominations that nail notability to the wall in and of themselves, and (b) actually does have some legitimate sources that have been added to the article since this discussion was initiated. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iftakar Uddin Emon

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

Not a notable subject. Most sourcing right now is Apple Music and Spotify. Fails all of WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:GNG. Sourcing is not reliable, independent, or secondary. WP:GOOGLETEST gives various song links, but no reliable sources. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 22:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 22:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real musical artist article. But there no more source. But maxtermedia and topnewsint24 is a popular news portal. Articel owner added the source using this news portal. So delete tag should be removed.

Yes. So give me more time to improve this article. Remove delete tag.

Delete Fails all of WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:GNG. There is no reliable, independent, or secondary sources. Didn't find anything in Bengali either. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Mccapra (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it’s clearly an autobio and the creator continues to disruptively remove the AfD template from the article. Mccapra (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per others —MdsShakil (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources listed that would even indicate notability. I concur with the others-- Apple Music and Spotify pages does not a notable person make. I have also found zero coverage of him online, besides what he has to say about himself. There is no good reason to keep this article. Helen(💬📖) 19:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to be notable. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly a self-promotion attempt by himself or a publicist. His music must be noticed by someone else before he qualifies for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing anything, including in the newer sources added, that would point to passing WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. PohranicniStraze (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Article is an orphan, and sources are not independent. bop34 • talk • contribs 18:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hitesh Soni and Associates, Law Firm

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

Non notable law firm that uses its own website and Quora entries as references. Does not meet GNG nor WP:ORGCRIT. WP:BEFORE does not return any notability. Whiteguru (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11. Mccapra (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra (talk) It doesn't make any sense to put the article for speedy deletion. The issues can be fixed as well as this is article about reliable firm, as you can check its notability. the article is also open for other to fix it.Kalim0135 (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteguru (talk) The firm is associated with Hitesh C. Soni who is much notable for the drama serial case Ishq subhan Allah, you can check his notaility as well as his frim. The both articles are stub so its open to others to help the articles.Kalim0135 (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable, refer to WP:NCORP.Gentleman wiki (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant news coverage exists. Webmaster862 (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A non notable, routine company that fails WP:NCORP. --Kbabej (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, per WP:NONPROFIT. BD2412 T 05:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dawood Foundation

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

Article is well REFBOMBED. Sources are routine and mostly unreliable. Fails WP:GNG Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 21:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 21:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 21:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Granted, the article has a more than a few citation problems, but there are enough to establish WP:GNG. While there are a few questionable sources, the article hosts sources from many reputable news agencies, including Dawn, The News International, and the Daily Times. It is very unreasonable to dispute this articles sourcing. RealKnockout (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All these reputed sources only gives routine coverage to the organisation. It fails to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 19:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article, it has many contributors and is well integrated into more cohesive information about Pakistan. The article was reviewed by User:John B123 after initially questioned and tagged as advertisement and missing neutrality but then fulfilled all demands. Not have something about this organisation would be an unnecessary loss of rare but relevant information. There are not many entries about such organisations in Pakistan available on Wikipedia. Why not changing or reformulating what disturbs instead of the total destructive way to deleting it?--Crosji (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article being marked as reviewed does not mean it shouldnt be nominated for deletion. There are not many entries about such organisations in Pakistan available on Wikipedia.. This is not a valid keep argument. The subject fails to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. I will withdraw my nom if someone comes up with WP:THREE. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 19:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla: I will provide you 3 suitable sources:
This article by Devex is by far the best source in the article. The entire page is about TDF and the publisher is reliable.

article by the Daily Times contains 1 paragraph about the Foundation and its activities.

This article is an interview piece by Dawn. One of the questions asked by the interviewer was about the Foundation, and the interviewee gave a lengthy response. The interviewer merely asking about the Foundation's activities cements its notability in major news agencies.
I hope you agree with this. RealKnockout (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:Hello RealKnockout, Im afraid that I cant agree with you on this.
The first one doesnt seem fine to me. I've no idea abou the reliability of Devex. But it is basically written like an advertisement.
The second one is talking entirely about something different and merely has the mention about the subject in a paragraph. Kindly read WP:ORGDEPTH.
The last one is a routine coverage about some other incident. It is also not enough to pass GNG. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 20:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla: Devex is a news agency focusing on organizations founded over 20 years ago.

I am sorry about the other 2, I think I may have copy pasted the wrong URL. I have posted the correct links below.

https://dailytimes.com.pk/798743/the-dawood-foundation-and-wwf-pakistan-host-a-webinar-on-the-effects-of-climate-crisis/

https://www.dawn.com/news/1216343 RealKnockout (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is it acceptable now for someone to bring an article to this AfD with so many references from almost all major newspapers of Pakistan? Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that you are pulling out the wrong guideline. My only concern is whether the subject having significant coverage from these newspapers. Having plenty of routine coverage from all the major publications doesnt merit a topic or subject its own standalone article. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 20:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  @Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla: I provided you the three articles already. Could you kindly accept the notability of the article now? RealKnockout (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I SDed this originally I've been asked to comment here. I have no strong views on whether it's kept in its current state Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's inappropriate to insist on application of ORGDEPTH here, this is a philanthropic organisation, WP:NONPROFIT is more appropriate. Whether an article has been refbombed has nothing to do with notability; it *may* suggest an attempt to subvert notability requirements, but we assume good faith first and foremost, especially in a case like this (ie a non-profit, philanthropic organisation). This is a 60 year old foundation inaugurated by the President of the Pakistan, funded by a company with a turnover of $1.6 billion in 2020....10 minutes of BEFORE reveals that information. No doubt the article needs clean up, but that is not the point of AfD. More than adequate sourcing in the article to meet the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NONPROFIT.4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Closing on behalf of the nominator who has withdrawn. Note that I am involved, so will undo this close on request. SpinningSpark 11:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent falling

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

WP:Notability. The sources are a The Onion article, two newsgroup posts, and a comic. A quick web search finds a brief mention in The Guardian, a post by an unnamed author on ScienceBlog.com, and a brief mention in Slate. I don't personally doubt that this was at least a minor phenomenon in the early 2000s, but I question that this meets the WP:SIGCOV guideline. MarshallKe (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, covered in reliably published books Human Origins: What Bones And Genomes Tell Us About Ourselves, Dictionary of Contemporary Mythology (by William R. Harwood), Undermining Science: Suppression and Distortion in the Bush Administration. Has also been covered in newspapers: The Guardian, The Daily Northwestern. SpinningSpark 22:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources idemtified by User:Spinningspark . . . dave souza, talk 09:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into fine-tuned universe. Isaac Newton was a deist who saw gravity as an element in the clockwork universe. The fact that this works so well is still something of a mystery. The contrary idea that it's all just random happenstance seems lacking while the page in question is just a feeble joke. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the sources in the article (and those I found when advocating a "week keep" 5 years ago) were less than fulsome, there do appear to be enough available now to support a claim to independent notability. Per User:Spinningspark and others. My recommendation (then and now) remains in the "keep" camp. Guliolopez (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Given the new sources, I concur with keeping the article. MarshallKe (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --Xurizuri (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edward S. Reed

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

As far as I can figure out, doesn't meet any of WP:NACADEMIC or general biography notability. Xurizuri (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He seems to be an authority in the field of Ecological Psychology the scientific study of perception-action from a non-functionalism approach. Looks like he wrote quite a few books and also see Worldcat. Oxford University lists one of his Ecological Psychology books and Yale University Press published one. With that said, I am not sure we can create out a biography together for an article. Lightburst (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Heavy citations give an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1, and the nine-page published academic obituary already listed as a reference and easily found online at [3] or [4] should provide plenty of material for filling out an article. JSTOR also lists multiple reviews of his books, enough for WP:AUTHOR and for more depth about the contributions of his books. Bad nomination, no effort at WP:BEFORE demonstrated, WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes NPROF#1 based on citations. At least three books (Encountering the world: Toward an ecological psychology, From soul to mind, James J. Gibson and the psychology of perception) have several hundred citations each (the first, over a 1,000) as well as reviews which would be a pass of NAUTHOR.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: oh fuck I think I nominated the wrong article. I'm so sorry to waste people's time, I had too many tabs open and I'm super bad with names. I'll be more careful in the future. --Xurizuri (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xurizuri: you can follow instruction at WP:CLOSEAFD for Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anyone who wants to create a redirect from this title to Princess Beatrice or a subsection thereof is welcome to do so, though the existing redirect from the full name may be thought sufficient. Deor (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Beatrice's daughter

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

Per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August Brooksbank: article on a minor who has no notability independent from her mother. DrKay (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:LOWPROFILE child for whom privacy is a serious concern, where the illusion of WP:Notability is purely due to familial ties (but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED). See WP:INVALIDBIO: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Jason Allen Alexander is included in the article on Britney Spears and the page Jason Allen Alexander merely redirects to that article. TompaDompa (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I commented, the name Sienna Mapelli Mozzi has been announced. It currently redirects to Princess Beatrice#Personal life, which seems reasonable. I don't think redirecting this title would be appropriate, however; as This is Paul notes, it is not unambiguous (it could for instance refer to Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg, daughter of Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom, and it is of course possible for the current Princess Beatrice to have a second daughter). I see no content worth merging; all the relevant information is already at Princess Beatrice#Personal life. TompaDompa (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The baby fails WP:Notability in the sense that their notability cannot be inherited (as per WP:NOTINHERITED), though the speculation over the baby's name has been a subject in the media since (and before) her birth. As such, the baby qualifies for notability in accordance with WP:GNG. --MaximusWikipedian (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not enough. Some journalists speculating about what a baby's name might be fails WP:GNG because (1) it's only speculation, and (2) it's a completely trivial matter, an unnamed baby's future name is nothing. Delete. Richard75 (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then redirect her name to her mother's page (once it has been announced). The child of a minor royal who is not expected to be elevated to a higher rank. She has the same level of notability as Princess Eugenie's son August Brooksbank. Keivan.f^Talk 02:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is the correct approach, looking through the Current Line of Succcession, none of the great-grandchildren minor royals have their own Wikipedia. ScottishNardualElf (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say delete (possibly with a redirect to her mother once the name is known as suggested). Too far off the direct line of succession to be significant and as an infant does not have notability in her own right. As a great-grandchild of a monarch she may well meet notability in the future, but not now. Dunarc (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current heir to the throne has long-held aims to reduce the royal family when he becomes king, meaning that this child won't even have a hereditary ceremonial role. [5] Recreate in 20 years when she's won a reality show or been given a cushy corporate post. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would propose to delete the articles of the Sussex Children too. There should only be an article on newborn royals if they are princes/princesses and therefore significant members of the royal familiy or if they bear some notability themeself, not only in connection to their parents. (This normally would be years later like inheritence of a substantive title, archiving something on their own or taking part in "the firm" somehow.) We do not need articles for individuals only listing their name, explaining which title they may use and which are actually used and listing some public appearance together with their parents. This should be in the articles of the parents and a more general on titles in the royal family. We should keep redirects to the more significant parent. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Should be redirected to Sienna Mapelli Mozzi which redirects to Princess Beatrice Moondragon21 (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC
Keep Sienna outranks the children of the Earl of St Andrews and they all have wikipedia page, she is a direct descendant of Elizabeth II and the late Duke of Edinburgh and deserves her own wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.199.149 (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are adults and have established notability through other ways, rather than just being born. Unlike the children of William and Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie's children will never become grandchildren of a monarch, and they are not high up in the line of succession to the throne either. Keivan.f^Talk 18:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per August Brooksbank.--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Princess Beatrice#Personal life, which is already the case with Sienna Mapelli Mozzi. This is Paul (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had the content added and removed from the main redirect Sienna Mapelli Mozzi. That way it will stay there for future records and there will be no need to keep the vague title "Princess Beatrice's daughter". Keivan.f^Talk 16:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible, and the page title is a little confusing anyway. She's not the only Princess Beatrice to have a daughter, as from a quick check of the articles linked to from the page Princess Beatrice (disambiguation), I can see at least two other princesses with the name have had daughters. This is Paul (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Princess Beatrice. There is a good joke in here somewhere about royals "inheriting" notability, and possibly another between "notability" and "nobility". However, as has been noted above, this person doesn't seem to be very close to the line of succession, and moreover, she was born on September 18. While I do believe this makes her Wikipedia's youngest BLP, it's pretty hard to argue for the merit of a biography currently spanning a period of less than a month. jp×g 01:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per WP:Articles for deletion/August Brooksbank. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Princess Beatrice#Personal life.4meter4 (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wildlife Trust of India

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

Article has existed since 2006 (and the charity organisation has existed since 1998), yet most mentions I can find are passing at best. Fails WP:NONPROFIT. Article has no references, and until recently was primarily promotional cruft. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best potential source I could find, and that's certainly not "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization" ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's an article about one of its projects, although the organization name isn't in the lede. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE was not competently done by the nominator. There is lots of significant coverage in google books (note use WTI as well as full name to search within each individual book for more prose hits of relevance as text often uses WTI in sentences after identifying the organization by full name). Here are just a few examples: [6] (pages 172-175), [7] (pages 30, 41, 51, 61, 62, 65, 71, 73, 74, 75, 85, 86, 92, 98, 216; look for WTI in text) [8] (page 305 has an in-depth overview of the organization; also passing mentions which verify it as a major organization on pages 172 and 175), [9] (pages 455, 481, and 495)[10] (page 84), [11] (page 315), etc.4meter4 (talk) 21:31, 27 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) 18:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4's sources are not convincing. I looked at the first few, passing mentions, appearance in bibliographies, addresses and the like. Do any of them have any actual in-depth discussion of the organisation? SpinningSpark 22:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark, did you actually search inside as instructed above using both Wildlife Trust of India and WTI? The organization is mentioned in multiple locations inside most of these books on multiple pages. Sometimes indepth and sometimes in passing depending on the passage. None of the books only list the organization in just the bibliography, so if you didn't carefully search and go to multiple pages you didn't check the sources properly.4meter4 (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you are claiming that all those sources have significant coverage? Let's start with the first one. On which page is this significant coverage? Can you quote any of it? As far as I can see there is only a single sentence on p. 175 "Wildlife Trust of India continues to work toward adding to the scientific understanding of whale sharks and their habits along the Gujarat coastline" which is vague to the point of meaningless even if it were significant which it is not. Nothing that could be used to add to the article. Please don't tell people to search. You need to point out where this significant coverage actually is. Just getting a bunch of hits for the term is not enough. SpinningSpark 00:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you didn't search properly as there are four mentions in that book alone which should appear in the page search at the top. Regardless, the entire section begins at the bottom of page 172 and continues through to page 175 and is about the WTI save the shark campaign across those four pages. Clearly you didn't read what was earlier for context or you would have seen that.4meter4 (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, I added page numbers to help you and others. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did search properly and found all four of the mentions. One of them is the sentence I quoted, two of them are bibliographic references, and one is a list of organisations involved in the Save the Whale Shark Campaign. The WTI is in that list along with International Fund for Animal Welfare, TATA Chemicals, and Gujarat Forest Department. That's just a passing mention. The section you refer to on pages 172–175 is not about the WTI, it's about the whale shark campaign. The only place the WTI even gets mentioned is the one sentence I quoted. That just doesn't do it for notability. Listing every passing mention is not convincing me. Please answer my question of where you found the WTI organisation discussed in detail. SpinningSpark 06:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and thanks to user:Eastmain for providing citations for this article and other cleanup. Evidence of notability is still only light, but this is certainly directly and in detail about the organisation and it's clear that the WTI is a major player in wildlife conservation. SpinningSpark 06:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there is significant coverage in Google Books.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 12:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Ejercito

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

Jake Ejercito

Actor who does not satisfy general notability or acting notability. Article was created as draft, then declined by AFC reviewer, then moved to article space by author.

None of the three roles listed in the filmography are described as major roles in their own Wikipedia articles.

Role	Major ?	Comments
Sunday Noontime Live	No	Listed fifth as host
ASAP	No	Not found in list of performers
Marry Me, Marry You	No	Listed as a supporting role

A check of the references shows that most of them are simply announcements that he has signed a contract with the largest agency in the Philippines. None of them come close to qualifying as significant coverage for general notability.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	ABS-CBN.COM	Appears to be a photo gallery	No		No	No
2	ABS-CBN.COM News	Announcement of contract with agency	No	No		No
3	ABS-CBN.COM News	Another announcement of signing contract with agency	No	No		No
4	PEP-PH.COM	Another story about signing contract with agency	No	No		No
5	Yahoo	Yet another story about signing contract with Star Magic agency	No	No		No

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete a case of too soon-itis. author had been adviced that the subject may not meet notability guidelines for actors before they moved the draft to the main space. The same advice is applicable here. – robertsky (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: This actor was passes the WP:NBIO. AnsrieJames9 (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuuppet of ParillasAndrie. ✗plicit 12:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- AnsrieJames9, just a note, in WP:NBIO, WP:NACTOR is a set of additional criteria that should be fulfilled on top of WP:BASIC as this article is primarily about the subject as an actor/entertainer. How does this article pass the criterias laid out in the guidelines? – robertsky (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR. Also, the author (AnsrieJames9) might be a possible sockpuppet of ParillasAndrie, where the sock master's editing habit have almost the same as the author and the name itself has the exact match on the user page. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 05:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~CruzRamiss2002, I'm not a sockpuppet user of ParillasAndrie, this is an owned account of Me. AnsrieJames9 (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

You should be requesting an unblock from your original account. Using an additional account to bypass your block is called 'sockpuppetry' and will count against you. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is eligible for WP:G5 - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ParillasAndrie -- Cabayi (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Lekso Saičić

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

Very dodgy sourcing for a person who may have one claim to fame. Its hard to tell as it also very badly written. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See the corresponding Russian and Serbian Wikipedia articles at https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%87,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80 and sr:Лексо_Саичић Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely a real person, but does not seem to meet any notability standard - sources exist but are unreliable. Significant evidence that there is considerable exaggeration regarding his feats. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus that the subject is sufficiently notable relative to the time period from which she came. BD2412 T 05:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ulpia (grandmother of Hadrian)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. I can find nothing worthwhile in secondary sources other than confirmation of the name, and the article is just a restatement of genealogical trivia already covered elsewhere. Avilich (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- In some cases like this, I would have voted to redirect to her husband, but she is important as part of the genealogical link between the successive emperor Trajan and Hadrian. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/delete Restating the family tree into words does not show notability; sources do not provide significant coverage, just relationships. Template:Nerva–Antonine family tree shows the connection to both, which is not enough to keep as an article too. Reywas92^Talk 20:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Peterkingiron.4meter4 (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I also agree Peterkingiron's point. VocalIndia (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peter. She does have importance. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not seeing here any demonstration of how 'she does have importance' or any guideline-based reason for keeping, just some drive-by copycatting of Peterkingiron's vote, which itself only calls for ignoring WP:NOTGENEALOGY without any reason. The subject here supposedly died before Trajan became emperor, meaning she was never part of the imperial family, so it's not like she gets automatic notability like some members of royal families. Avilich (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you study my contributions you will see I don't do "drive-by copycat" votes and I think you need to get some perspective on this matter. It is a discussion among interested editors, not a WP:SOAPBOX for you to climb onto and air your grievances against anyone who disagrees with you. My comment was that I agree with Peter because I consider the subject to have importance in Roman history. As for WP:NOTGENEALOGY, that is inapplicable here because it says: "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic". That would apply to articles like Trajan or Hadrian if someone should add a substantial piece about Ulpia to those – it does not apply here because most of the available information about Ulpia concerns her relationships. You say Ulpia wasn't a patrician and was never a member of the imperial family. She was Hadrian's grandmother and Trajan's aunt. As Spinningspark has rightly pointed out, a significant person in the ancient world must not be treated in the same way as some 21st century "celeb" about whom little is known. Ulpia's importance in Roman history is her family relationship to important people and she meets not only WP:GNG but also WP:COMMONSENSE. You don't build an encyclopaedia by deleting information about notable people who lived in places and times about which relatively little is known. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't build an encyclopedia by adding content indiscriminately, down to the smallest of trivia about someone's distant relative. Someone's importance in history is measured by coverage in historical sources, not by retrojecting a conjectural 'celeb' status to someone in the past. Relatives of 'celebs' are usually notable because their relationship already causes them to have coverage anyway. The only thing that matters is sources, how much you think is enough doesn't matter because you have none. Avilich (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I looked, the article cited eight sources with a direct quote about Ulpia in each citation. The article has not been created discriminately, unlike this AfD. You create an encyclopaedia using sources (eight of them so far in this article) and WP:COMMONSENSE. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be purposely obtuse, I already told you that sources go no further than restating family relationships and name, none of which establishes notability. And whoever added these sources did not think to look carefully (it's no more than a WP:NOTEBOMB if we're being honest), since apparently at least one of them is about a different person. Avilich (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all interested in what you may have "already told me". You are not an editor that deserves respect. That much is clear from a cursory glance at your talk page. You are clearly obsessed with notability but let me remind you that the second G in GNG means guideline. As I have already told you, editors must use WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:EDITDISC instead of blindly following this rule and that rule and the other rule. As it says in WP:COMMONSENSE: "Why isn't 'use common sense' an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy". You do not build an encyclopaedia by deleting information about topics that are so obviously useful. You build an encyclopaedia by developing articles about topics that readers may find useful – a student of Roman history would certainly find Ulpia's article useful. I have nothing further to say here. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT... Avilich (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cobbling together an article from weak sources for a person from the ancient world is an entirely different matter from doing that for a modern person and we should not treat them equivalently. In our time, that can be done for almost any nobody (and frequently is which is why CSD And AFD are so busy). On the other hand, there are a very limited number of people we even know the names of from the ancient world. Ulpia comes from an important patrician family and if she were alive today she would have a biography written, the papers would be full of stories about her, and she might make the cover of Forbes or Vogue. SpinningSpark 22:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a patrician, and never a member of the imperial family; pure conjecture about sources and coverage that don't exist Avilich (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never said she was in the imperial family. And ok, not strictly a patrician (that's only men anyway), but her family is of senatorial rank and the distinction between that and patrician by her time was no longer of any real significance. SpinningSpark 09:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not born of senatorial status either Avilich (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what? As Spinningspark said, no longer of any real significance. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

exactly Avilich (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that we should be particularly careful when assessing notability for historical figures (per WP:NEXIST etc.), but that doesn't mean giving them a free pass either. The sources that we have don't tell us anything about Ulpia beyond her name and her relatives, and that's not significant coverage. Counterfactual speculation about what would happen if she were a "modern person" doesn't strike me as helpful: we can't write an article based on sources that don't exist. (If we try to, serious original research problems immediately present themselves, as the present form of this article shows.) WP:NOTGENEALOGY makes this even clearer. Unless there's some sort of non-trivial coverage that I'm missing, she isn't notable. I'm not averse to a redirect, but I don't think it would be particularly helpful: this is an unlikely search term, and there's no single logical target. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important as a historical figureJackattack1597 (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Xavier Institute students and staff. Consensus is that the consent is insufficiently sourced to justify a content merge and redirection was generally better favoured, even by the sole delete !vote as per WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbermaid (comics)

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

Article fails to meet WP:GNG. No reliable sources discuss the character. TTN (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: R per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Xavier Institute students and staff, where character is already covered in sufficient detail. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: R in the same suggestion as @BOZ:....WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Xavier Institute students and staff. This character has not received significant coverage from reliable, secondary sources so there is not a strong enough argument to warrant this having a separate article. I'm arguing for this redirect target as this character is already discussed there. The character is not listed in List of Marvel Comics characters: R (unless I am overlooking it). Aoba47 (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: R.4meter4 (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per WP:NPLOT and WP:NOR. No adequate coverage in sources, no need for merging even, since the article is all original research. Avilich (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Xavier Institute students and staff - No current sources in the article, and searches do not bring up significant coverage in reliable sources. I agree with Aoba47 regarding the redirect target, as she is already included in the target article, and it is a less broad topic than the overarching List of Marvel Comics characters: R. Rorshacma (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one of the proposed targets, no evidence of independent notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/Redirect to List of Marvel Comics Characters. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artie Maddicks

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

Fails WP:GNG. Other than a singular Portuguese scholar source, there doesn't seem to be any particular coverage of the character. TTN (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: M per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DON'T PRESERVE. There's no adequately sourced content, so the need for merging is zero. Avilich (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Selective Merge to Future Foundation. Is a viable search term, and can be covered in sufficient detail at suggested target. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: M in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: M.4meter4 (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the proposed target, no evidence of independent notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collective transferable vote

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

Looks like something that was obviously made up by somebody (i.e. WP:OR); contributed by an SPA whose editing pattern indicates they're closely related to this subject, likely the inventor of the idea (this is obvious from one of the self-published pages used as a source, [12]). I can't verify the rest since the sources are (unhelpfully) all in Polish; but this same topic was deleted also on Polish wiki ([13]); with the same concerns that I have, namely that this is WP:OR and that no mention of this can be found in reliable secondary sources, failing WP:GNG as well. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does appear to be OR. There is information about Single transferable vote, but we already have a page. If this is a legitimate system we will need to see more RS to support an article. I do not think a draftify will help - but perhaps the author can continue to edit until we have more RSs. I feel bad because this was obviously quite a bit of work, but we just cannot be the first to publish this. Lightburst (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In 2017 we had this concept added to Canadian political articles based on this.....was removed swiftly.--Moxy- 21:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell, all the sources are personal documents. Couldn't even call them self-published. SpinningSpark 23:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mpiima Johnson

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

Repeatedly recreated article under multiple names; see extensive history under Mpiima jeson, Mpiima johnson and Mpiima Jeson as well as this article. No reliable sources have been cited and a WP:BEFORE search comes back only with other wiki sites like Gyaanipedia and Everybodywiki, which are user-generated and unacceptable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt — Per detailed rationale by Spiderone. The subject of the article fails to meet WP:JOURNALIST or GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Nowhere meets WP:GNG. Also Salt for multiple names option. DMySon (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per the above and as an obvious example of WP:NOTPROMO. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per all above. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The deletion log shows one deletion under Mpiima Johnson. And it was appropriately deleted WP:G11. Then it was deleted once under Jeson as WP:G3. I have not determined if these were two separate subjects or the same. But there was a WP:8 for lower case: Mpiima jeson. I could only support salting if the Jeson and jeson articles were the same as this one. Lightburst (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spiderone fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Everyone above is correct. Allow me to add that if this guy and his publicist can't decide what his surname is, that's a bizarre way to promote his career and we shouldn't be part of it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamás Csepregi

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

Whilst his 22 mins of professional football 10 years ago might give an assertion of meeting WP:GNG, there is clear consensus that this does actually need to be supported by WP:RS showing significant and direct coverage of Csepregi for him to have a stand-alone biography article.

A search of Hungarian sources yields only mentions in tabloids relating to his girlfriend Viki Singh. WP:BLP is extremely clear on Wikipedia policy when it comes to using tabloid junk to reference articles. Since I can't see any potential for this article to be cited to anything better than trashy celeb gossip articles in Blikk and BorsOnline, I do not believe that GNG or WP:BIO are met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Gentleman wiki (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passing NFOOTY (in addition to the above being a vague wave), which is only a rebuttable presumption, is not a valid argument if the subject actually fails GNG, as demonstrated by other commentators. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep all. 4meter4 (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Climate of Rajasthan

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

An article with no encyclopedia value with links cited that don't count as a source. One is to a news article that may not count as a reliable source, the other is just a webpage that is two charts, one from 2003 to 2014 of the highest and lowest temperature and rainfall data. The other of the period from 1971 to 2000. The article is nothing more than unsourced information and a picture gallery. Don't see the notability for this and the three below. GNG clearly is not met here. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages over the same concerns as with the Rajasthan article:

--WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm updating the nomination to include the following related articles over the same issues upon further examination of the sourcing and information:

These five have the same issues as the four nominated above as the majority of sources are about weather events and temperature. There is very little information about the climate of these regions as well. Articles about the weather don't qualify as being notable simply because it was a record amount of rainfall outside a storm. This falls under trivial information. GNG is not met here as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Starting with Climate of Rajasthan, most of the information is uncited, and should be removed. What remains could easily be folded into the appropriate main article. That would seem to argue for a merge, except that the information (temp and precip) is only about Jaipur, which already has that info and more in its Climate section. The same is true of the other three proposed deletions. If anyone sees any cited info they want to merge, go for it! Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing information for the sole reason that it is uncited is disruptive and does not help to build the encyclopaedia. One should have reason to suspect the information is dubious and make at least a cursory attempt to cite it oneself before considering removing it. SpinningSpark 21:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all of the uncited info is dubious. How do you know what the busy tourist season is? or the exact temp range? It would be nice to try to check these out, bit it is not required. The onus is on the person wishing to keep the information. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on the restorer if something is deleted, but just because you can delete something does not mean that you should. Lack of a citation does not automatically make the statement dubious. There's a reason that policy does not say "all uncited material must be deleted". Rather, WP:V encourages the person considering removal to try and provide a source themselves and the WP:REMOVAL essay is even more pertinent. If you were arguing that information on temperature [14][15] or tourist season [16] was impossible to establish then it would be unverifiable and rightly removed, but that is not the case here. SpinningSpark 13:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I already noted, virtually all of the uncited info was questionable. Note the large warnings in the article about uncited material. It need not be "impossible to establish" to be removed. If it was so easy to verify, someone should have already done it. Hey, if you wanted, you could have already done so; you presumably read the article warnings before beginning this conversation. Problem solved! --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete all such articles as appropriate. When I want to know about a place, I look at the article on that place. The weather is one of the things that I might want to read about. It should be in the main article, as it's a basic, fundamental piece of information about a country or region, and as a reader I don't want to be sent off on a trail of links over basics like that. Articles on countries/regions are usually fairly long, but with good subdivision and a good contents section, so quite a detailed description of the climate and seasons could be put into a typical country article without any harm. It would be extremely exceptional that the climate of a country was so notable independent of the country that it needed its own "personal" article. Elemimele (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:ARTN Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article and WP:NEXIST The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable and WP:AFD is not cleanup. The climate of a state is plainly notable, I am astonished that this is even being questioned. There are plenty of book sources; Climate of Rajasthan State book published by Indian Meteorological Department, Rajasthan Geography has a 20-page chapter, Faunal Heritage of Rajasthan, India has a 32-page chapter. I'm totally confident an equal amount of sourcing can be found for the other nominations. SpinningSpark 20:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the articles, they just suffer from poor sourcing. The climate of a state and major cities are inherently notable — DaxServer (talk to me) 13:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case for states and territories of India then many of them wouldn't be redirects to sections about the climate or geography of the respective mainspace articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where the information should be located is a very different question from should the information be deleted and is not an issue best dealt with at AFD. That's a merge request/discussion which would normally take place on the article talk pages. SpinningSpark 14:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue a merge discussion would be inadequate too because I would bring up that we would have to merge every climate article related to a city, state, or territory per WP:NEUTRALITY if we were going down that route. If a major Indian city or a state doesn't qualify, why should a US or British city qualify? States, territories, and major cities are large enough areas to warrant their own climate articles. Noah^Talk 15:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Climate articles for Indian states and major cities clearly pass GNG; they have bad sourcing, but that's not a reason to delete them. The reasons mentioned for deleting or merging above are fundamentally flawed and sources do exist for these topics. Noah^Talk 15:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Himachal pradesh, Gujarat, West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar pradesh are states with population in millions although they need more sources. I have not comment for the cities. - SUN EYE 1 14:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about the population of these states. Don't understand your keep vote. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishing to put words into the user's mouth, but I think the point is that a state with a population of millions is large enough and important enough to write something meaningful about its climate. As opposed to "Climate of Puddletown" (population 1450). SpinningSpark 14:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but this isn't about the population and the effect of notability as a result of the former. This is about the subject matter of failing GNG in my view. Population has nothing to do with this. And population in this case is not a GNG requirement. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should nominate every single British and US city climate article for deletion as well to have neutrality here. The India articles are in poor shape since they have fewer editors on our wiki. Noah^Talk 22:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You still want to claim this fails notability when a whole book has been written on the topic and two other books have large chapters on it? Clearly you have no idea what the notability requirements actually are. Let me remind you A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So how many more books beside the three I already noted above do you need before you agree that coverage is significant? Here's some more; 53-page chapter, 4 pages, 12-page chapter, and this one is only about the tiger reserve, but still spends three pages on climate. There are also academic papers written on the climate of Rajasthan [17][18][19][20]. SpinningSpark 22:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

" Clearly you have no idea what the notability requirements actually are". Hostility and assertions don't help. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither does asserting that GNG has not been met without a clear rationale behind it. Continuing to assert it without a rationale when evidence to the contrary has been provided, and without challenging that evidence in any way, is simply pig-headed. Telling you that you are mistaken is not hostility. Please address the issue of whether the sources establish notability rather than complaining that you have been slighted in some way. SpinningSpark 23:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me it seems quite a common sense that Climate of a 130,058 km2 (Tamil Nadu as of now) patch of land attracts GNG by definition, when combined that it is recognised politically, geographically, socially with an invisible "border" which we call a "state", and all the others nominated. All of us agree that the content is poor. And so does thousands of stubs many of whom lack any reference at all. If we go by your reasoning, it's high time we purge everything that is not sourced? — DaxServer (talk to me) 06:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable topic about the climate of a large area.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiegan

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

Almost no indication of notability; only one source. Minkai (talk to me)_{(see where I screwed up)} 14:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per WP:GEOLAND this is an officially recognised community so is pretty much automatically notable. Searching for 铁杆镇 returns a huge number (in the millions) of hits from google. I can't read Chinese so can't assess those sources, but unlikely not to be anything at all. SpinningSpark 15:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep definitely a real place, as populous as many towns in the west. The coords were wrong but the ones on Wikidata are correct so I changed it to use those which I think makes it clearer what it refers to, though many western maps seem to be missing even basic information about it. Easy to find on Baidu maps though which shows an active populated town.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:D142:2677:C9F3:75F (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Clearly meets WP:GEOLAND. Jumpytoo Talk 16:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, speedy keep, striking my original vote. This was a thoughtless nomination. SpinningSpark 18:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, definitely meets WP:GEOLAND. Sun8908 _Talk 07:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iberia Flight 6463

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

Not notable aviation incident. While the plane was written off, those caused by runway overruns are very common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this passes WP:NEVENT; I can't find even fleeting news coverage. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than sources confirming the existence of the accident, there's nothing out there indicating it was a news event of lasting significance. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Runway excursions are quite common. The fact that a decision was made not to repair the plane does not make this a notable event. Gentleman wiki (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this does have coverage just not under the flight number (IB6463). El Mundo in 2007: [21][22], FG: [23]. Various aviation sites from much later: [24][25]. The aircraft involved, a large Airbus A340-600, was new one (first flight 2006, crash end of 2007) and was destroyed (the airline decided to break it up rather than recover and repair it). Uncertain about NEVENT here, but coverage is more forthcoming when searching for A340+Quito+Iberia.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that it is notable, just that it needs desparate expansion through it. It has a decent amount of coverage as seen above. KlientNo.1 (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not temporary.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jetstreamer: - are you sure you meant delete with that rationale? Mjroots (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep @Mjroots: Thanks por pointing this out. I don't know what I was thinking about. On a second thought, the airframe was written off so a keep is more appropriate for me.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt appear to be particularly noteworthy for a stand-alone article, a mention under A340 and and Iberia as a write off should be sufficient. MilborneOne (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗plicit 14:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts Aircraft

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

~~The defunct company doesn't meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Asketbouncer (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would highly suggest that the nominator strike the second and third sentences of the nomination. How interesting something is or how much it's been viewed or edited are not relevant at all to whether an article should be deleted or not. Curbon7 (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~:: agree! removed. However, the template remains for 14 years. Asketbouncer (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note, I struck the nominator's comments as they are a sock. I have not placed a G5 tag on the page as User:Curbon7 commented, however WP:CSK(4) may apply.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 13:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nagisa Auto

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

After 15 years this article still has no references to demonstrate notability. In reviewing the text it does not seem to scream notable, and could do with a review for those with that interest in motor sport and car parts. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vasco (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL, his professional play consisting of 28 minutes in the cup. Totally uncontroversial proposal. Geschichte (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Not uncontroversial given the PROD was contested. NemesisAT (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about footballer who made a single appearance in a league cup match between clubs from fully-pro leagues when he was aged 16. Record covered his debut match, but there is really nothing else that could make me believe this footballer is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and any presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL is invalid. Jogurney (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jogurney. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Though I will say it's not an "uncontroversial" deletion, as he does sort of pass WP:NFOOTY for that 28 minutes appearance, so can see why it was deprodded. Anyway, AfD is better than PROD, so at least the decent process is being used now. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom, non notable. Gentleman wiki (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there seems to be no assertion from anyone that this player meets GNG. The best source I can find is a mention in Maisfutebol which is not enough Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. due to lack of further participation; WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Mom

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

Fails WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO. I did a WP:BEFORE search and found nothing. The Film Creator (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2 Critic Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes [26] and a third review at TV Guide [27] DonaldD23 talk to me 23:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Counterpoint: All this really tells you is three people watched the movie. Three views is not fame! Minkai (no talk page yet!) 14:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment 3 CRITICs watched the film, which passes the review criteria established at WP:NFILM. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NF IMHO. Kolma8 (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The actual criterion of WP:NFO regarding critics is "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" which it fails as this was a direct to cable/video movie. I would also argue that it doesn't meet NFO criterion #2: "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release" - articles suggests something far more in depth than just a review. None of the other NFO criteria apply. Plus NFO lists indicative criteria of likely notability, and does not override GNG. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you expand on how a film released "direct to cable/video" (which reaches millions of viewers) is different from a film released today "direct to streaming" (ie. Netflix/Hulu/Amazon Prime, etc.) which also reaches millions of viewers? Are you saying that those films are not notable either? If so, Wikipedia is about to get purged of a lot of films! Being released to the audience in ways other than theatrical release does NOT automatically make it non-notable. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Shouldn’t WP:NTV be the relevant SNG as it’s the only guideline that addresses cable tv programming? NFO is really more about movie theatre releases as opposed to films made for tv.4meter4 (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this was released direct to video. It aired frequently on TV afterwards, but it wasn't made for TV from what I can see. Now as far as the widely distributed part goes of NFILM, I need to note that the term is not defined on the page. As such, we can take widely distributed to mean anything from released to theaters to released to home video to even released directly to YouTube. Now what we should be looking at is whether or not the reviews for the film are from reliable sources. I can't access either one on RT, but the TV Guide one would be reliable. The review is also pretty in-depth, especially for a TV Guide review. Emanuel Levy is a RS, but the one that gives me pause is the Juicy Cerebellum one. The site is gone as far as I can tell, so we have to try and see if it's been used as a source by RS. It's referenced in this academic press book, as well as this one which is a good sign that it's probably usable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found two more reviews offline which were published years after the film's release. I also found a third reference source with an entry on the film (last of the three given below). These with the other critical reviews above pass WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Martin, Marsha Porter (2001). "Invisible Mom". Video Movie Guide 2002. Random House Publishing Group. p. 554. ISBN 9780345421005. independent review
Martin Connors, Jim Craddock (1999). "Invisible Mom". VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever 1999. Visible Ink Press. p. 462. ISBN 9781578590414. independent review
Robert A. Nowlan, Gwendolyn L. Nowlan, Gwendolyn Wright Nowlan (2001). "Invisible Mom". The Films of the Nineties: A Complete, Qualitative Filmography of Over 3000 Feature-length English Language Films, Theatrical and Video-only, Released Between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 1999. McFarland & Company. p. 284. ISBN 9780786409747.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) reference work entry with details on film

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that article passes WP:SIGCOV based on Chinese languages sources discussed during the course of the AfD. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Rong

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

Fails WP:MMANOT for having no fights in top tier promotions. Also fails WP:GNG as coverage for fights are routine report. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 11:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see some profiles and other coverage in Chinese-language sources: [28] [29] [30] [31]. A more thorough search would probably find more. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mx. Granger I'm sorry, but my computer security settings block the first and third of your references. Of the other two, one is promoting an upcoming OneFC fight card in Shanghai in 2019 and the other is highlighting the best Chinese fighter performances in the 2019 OneFC events in Beijing and Shanghai. Do you have some better examples of significant coverage? That's important because he clearly doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ He has no top tier fights to meet WP:NMMA. My search did not find anything to show me that there is enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Fightmatrix says his highest ranking ever was 140th, which is not close to showing WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I crossed out my vote. While I'm not convinced by the sources given, the fact that I'm unable to access all of them means the coverage may be better than I can see. Papaursa (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 黄业 (2019-06-03). ""金刚战警"樊荣:争取展现中国大级别拳手的实力" ["King Kong Warriors" Fan Rong: Strive to show the strength of China's major fighters]. 北京千龙新闻网络传播有限责任公司 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-09-06. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
  From Google Translate: "Fan Rong has a strong physique, not only has huge muscles, but also has clear lines, and his beautiful abdominal muscles are not lost to small-level fighters. He has practiced javelin, discus and shot put since he was a child and is an excellent track and field athlete. After being admitted to the Sports Training Department of Harbin Institute of Physical Education in 2009, he began to understand and get in touch with mixed martial arts. ... In the arena, he played a good record of 11 wins and 2 losses. It is worth mentioning that Fan Rong also represented the Chinese national team in the MMA Asian Championships. With two surrenders and one TKO, he defeated three powerful enemies and won the 93 kg gold medal."
2. "樊荣:中国大级别选手之光期待ONE上海站迎来爆发" [Fan Rong: The glory of China's major players, looking forward to the outbreak of ONE Shanghai Station] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2019-05-24. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
  From Google Translate: "Fan Rong, previously a special police officer, officially entered the professional mixed martial arts competition in early 2016. In just over two years, he has won ten consecutive victories in domestic competitions, including four surrenders and five KO end victories. ... At the beginning of 2019, Fan Rong continued to pursue his dream of mixed martial arts, successfully completed the signing of the ONE Championship, and successfully entered the international arena. ... In his debut at Manila this year, Fan Rong challenged Reinier De Ridder, a Dutch athlete who is 193 cm tall. In the first round of the competition, the Dutch used perfect Jiu-Jitsu skills to create unprecedented pressure on Fan Rong. While ending Fan Rong's ten-game winning streak, he improved his record to 10 wins and 0 losses."
3. 格斗迷 (2020-11-12). "明晚ONE新加坡开打，我国大级别选手"战警"樊荣出战" [Tomorrow night ONE Singapore kicks off, my country's major player "War Police" Fan Rong will play] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
  From Google Translate: "At present, the best middleweight player in my country's mixed martial arts should be the "war police" Fan Rong. He is 185 cm tall and weighs about 85 kg. He has a current record of 11 wins and 2 losses. He has a very good body and is also very good at surrendering opponents. There are not many domestic athletes who can compare with him, so in the future, Fan Rong will mainly challenge Russian and European and American players. It is conceivable that the difficulty is very large. Fan Rong’s opponent this time is Brazilian Yuri Simmons, who currently has no mixed martial arts record and has won the championship of innocent jiu-jitsu."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Fan Rong (Chinese: 樊荣) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist to allow time for additional input regarding sources presented in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely meets WP:GNG, thanks to work by Cunard. VocalIndia (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the sources supplied by Cunard. The second two especially appear to focus on Fan Rong and are WP:SIGCOV. NemesisAT (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G7. ✗plicit 12:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dubin (business executive)

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

Fails GNG but should be redirected to Dollar Shave Club INeedToFlyForever (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability independent of the company, and Michael Dubin already redirects to Dollar Shave Club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnomingstuff (talk • contribs) 14:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basti khabar

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

News channel that lacks WP:RS INeedToFlyForever (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article was created in both article space, in draft space, and in draft talk space, perhaps in order to game the system. This article cannot be draftified because it is already in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not speak for itself as to notability of the news feed. An analysis of the references shows that most of them either state that Basti Khabar exists, or show that other sites are reprinting or rebranding Basti Khabar news. In other words, there is churnalism, which happens, and does not result in notability.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Nagaur News	Announcement of channel	N		Y	N
2	Bastikhabar Online	A story about Pegasus Spyware	No. The subject is the web site.	N/A	Y	No
3	JharkandAajKal	A story about Basti Khabar	No	Yes		No
4	Harraiya Times	Appears to be an ad for Basti Khabar	No			No
5	Medium.com	A story about Basti Khabar	No. In the nature of a press release.	N/A		No
6	NDTV.in	It appears that this site is republishing news from the subject news service	No	No	Yes	No
7	Jagran.com	It appears that this site is republishing news from the subject news service	No	No	Yes	No
8	Livehindustan	Labeled as Basti News	No	No	Yes	No
9	Amarjula	Labeled as Basti News	No	No	Yes	No
10	Zeenews.India.com	Basti News	No	No	Yes	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per above user but drafted article should be kept for further inclusion of information. Fade258 (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Gentleman wiki (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per analysis of sources by Robert McClenon, fails WP:NCORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltán Csiszár

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

No professional games recorded on Soccerway, MLSZ or HLSZ so doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Nothing on Google News or DDG supports a claim to WP:GNG. At best, I found one interview of him in a local Orosháza-based website here but if you strip out the content that isn't directly from Csiszár's mouth, there's little there and, in any case, GNG calls for multiple reliable sources not just one. The website also looks closer to a blog than a reputable news source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Aïnouz

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

Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is not required to meet the WP:ENTERTAINER criteria, as per WP:BASIC "[p]eople who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below." The subject of the article meets the criteria in that they have "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Thanks.--17jiangz1 (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 17jiangz1 is correct and there is sufficient coverage to justify this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I have expanded the article and have added three more references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen and work done on the page, well sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

László Brettschneider

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

8 minutes of professional football might provide a weak presumption of WP:GNG notability but there is little evidence of a pass. Very little found in a Hungarian source search. Origo and Nemzeti Sport do have mentions of him in match reports for semi-pro games but nothing more than that. Given that he seemingly retired over 10 years ago, I'm not seeing any likelihood of future notability either. Hungarian Wikipedia has an article on him but it's sourced entirely to an unacceptable Wordpress blog. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Current article doesn't have any good sources to pass GNG. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY, and has almost 5 years in a fully pro club.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Debrah

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

Debrah was an unused substitute for one single Championship game but, apart from that, there is no claim to being close to being notable. The cited sources lack depth so do not demonstrate WP:GNG. Nothing better found in this search. Google News has this Halifax Courier article, however, the overwhelming majority of the article is just a regurgitation of his post-match comments to the local press with little independent analysis. The journalist makes some comments about his height and that he spent 10 years at Millwall but I'm not seeing enough there in this one local paper to justify a stand-alone article in a global encyclopaedia, especially considering that he is yet to play even one minute of football at the professional level. GNG also generally requires multiple sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is no place for "sportspeople" who did absolutely nothing. Minkai (talk to me)_{(see where I screwed up)} 14:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 13:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SOPHIA (European Foundation for the Advancement of Doing Philosophy with Children)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Unsourced since 2007. I cannot find any significant coverage of this foundation, nor does the article make any credible claim of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ade Ivan Hafilah

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

Footballer who has spent his entire career playing in semi-pro leagues with no apparent claim to notability. I will do a source analysis to explain why I believe that the current sourcing falls short on WP:GNG. An Indonesian search came back with nothing better so I am confident that the current sources show the best coverage. FlashScore and Football Database confirm the WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis - falls short on WP:GNG, please see below comments Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://spiritnews.co.id/2017/03/20/ini-alasan-ade-ivan-kembali-berkostum-persika/		~ The best source by far, however, even here it only briefly discusses his career and confirms that he is a striker. Aside from that, there are three small quotes from him.	~ Partial
https://www.indosport.com/sepakbola/amp/20190702/hasil-liga-2-2019-psms-medan-vs-cilegon-united-tuan-rumah-kalah		Squad list at the end of a match report	✘ No
https://www.cakaplah.com/berita/baca/40351/2019/07/14/gagal-curi-poin-psps-riau-justru-jadi-bulanbulanan-cilegon-united#sthash.VpUg9eMh.JeN745uO.dpbs		Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.tribunnewswiki.com/2021/06/02/ade-ivan-hafilah	Sourced entirely to Transfermarkt	The article itself is just a prose version of his Transfermarkt profile	✘ No
https://www.infosumsel.id/read/2021/05/30/5278/MBU-Langsung-Boyong-4-Pemain?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=feed		Mentioned a few times but no great depth	✘ No
https://banten.tribunnews.com/2021/09/18/jelang-liga-2-2021-perserang-rekrut-pemain-berposisi-striker		Brief transfer announcement, doesn't contain any strong coverage	✘ No
https://topskor.pikiran-rakyat.com/liga-indonesia/pr-1502686230/perserang-kalahkan-pskc-cimahi-ade-ivan-hafilah-jadi-bintang		Match report on game where he scored but no strong coverage otherwise	✘ No
https://www.bantenraya.com/banten-sport/pr-1271285408/menang-2-1-ade-ivan-bawa-perserang-kalahkan-pskc		Refers to same game as above source. Again, he is mentioned in the title as a goalscorer but there is no actual depth of coverage and we can't build an article from this sort of thing.	✘ No
https://ligaindonesiabaru.com/index.php/clubs/singleplayer/liga_2_2020_old/ade_ivan_hafilah		Stats	✘ No
https://live.lapangbola.com/players/25457	?	Stats	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete source evaluation demonstrates that they don't pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. ... discospinster _talk 15:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daud Ali (YouTuber)

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

Likely WP:AUTOBIO or WP:COI given the multiple recreations under Daud ali, Daud Ali YouTuber, Daud ali (mr daud1304) and Mr daud1304. Wikipedia is not a web host nor is it an advertising space. The article fails to cite even a single reliable, independent source and I could find nothing better in a WP:BEFORE search.

I have sent this to AfD rather than doing a speedy delete as I feel that there is an endless cycle of recreation at the moment and a discussion will at least make future creations eligible for WP:G4 if the creator insists on continual reposting further to this discussion.

Alternatively, if there is significant coverage from reliable sources, then please share. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 and salt. Four denied attempts to create the article and this user still isn't getting it. Ajf773 (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non-notable You-Tuber, fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of subject Celestina007 (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 and salt. Mccapra (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 and salt per all. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT all titles. Having been recreated with a fifth title after being speedily deleted per WP:A7 thrice ([32][33][34]) and WP:G11 once ([35]) is an instant and massive red flag. If nothing else, I consider this to be sufficient evidence for WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia), specifically WP:NOTPROMO. TompaDompa (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete fails WP:GNG salt Wakowako (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kepaksian Sekala Brak Kuno

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

There seem to be no reliable sources for "Kepaksian Sekala Brak Kuno"[36], and very few sources in general[37]. The article is also barely comprehensible. It seems to be part of a series of new similar articles by one or two(?) brand new editors, User:The cinnamon and User:Anaya Fayola Amijaya, including Draft:Sekala Brak, Kepaksian Sekala Brak and Draft:Islam in Lampung (2): while these are not included in this AfD, they may help in deciding what best to do here (deleting, draftifying, redirecting, ...). But without better sources, I propose simple deletion as the best solution. Fram (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify immediately. The article is a total mess and written a way that it is not even possible for an average WP editor to establish whether it should be kept, merged somewhere or deleted. Btw, the page has been disruptively moved in the meantime to Sekala Brak, which already had been draftified to Draft:Sekala Brak. Just like they have recreated[38] Kepaksian Sekala Brak after it had been draftified (which is pretty reckless – @Fram: is this a WP:A10?). –Austronesier (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is an A10 (A10 doesn't count between draft and article space), but it is a total trainwreck of multiple similar articles moved, draftified, recreated, ... by multiple brand new editors. Fram (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Add I have just looked up id.WP. The topic area has been haunted by a host of sock accounts which created the same mess there which we encounter here now. The page id:Kepaksian Sekala Brak has been trimmed to a stub by User:Rahmatdenas who noted that the topic is notable, but that the page suffered from multiple issues like unreliable sources, content not matching sources, etc. –Austronesier (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy draftify: Honestly not even worth taking a look at tbh. If it's factually accurate, then it's probably notable, but there's no chance in hell I'm going to even attempt to decipher this article as currently written. This needs a lot of love in order to be in mainspace. Curbon7 (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I just read the comments by Fram, which complicates the process if it's been constantly moved in and out. Curbon7 (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been moved to the title Sekala Brak now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Created by Indonesian Wikipedia abuser. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G5; created by The cinnamon, a blocked sock; and the only expansion since is by at best dubious WP:SPA IPs... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. The title already redirects to Shahzada Khanam and this is an incomplete nomination as well. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzada Khanum Begum

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

Doesn't meet with WP:GNG guideline. ➤ Tajwar.thesuperman ^Talk 09:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar.thesuperman ^Talk 09:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar.thesuperman ^Talk 09:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is also Shahzada Khanam. Either both should be deleted, or one redirected to the other. Fram (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Salvi

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

Doesn't meet with WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. ➤ Tajwar.thesuperman ^Talk 08:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar.thesuperman ^Talk 08:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar.thesuperman ^Talk 08:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar.thesuperman ^Talk 08:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano has played more than twelve Serie C seasons, a professional competition.WP:NFOOTY.Pincheira22 (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Serie C is certainly WP:FPL so he easily passes NFOOTY. At present, the article is a stub and, on the face of it, well short of demonstrating GNG. Given Salvi's experience, however, there must be substantial sources available and I think NFOOTY is enough on this occasion. The article does need considerable expansion, though, as per any one-line stub. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above, clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. David notMD (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT(3), as CORPDEPTH doesn't apply to a biography and the nomination rationale appears copied from other nominations ([39][40][41][42]). In addition this a clear snow situation.(non-admin closure) --07:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉)

Karla Gower

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

Do not meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Asketbouncer (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The holder of a named professorship is automatically notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:NPROF#5: Karla has held a named chair in the University of Alabama. Java Hurricane 07:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes NPROF not sure about GNG though. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per INeedToFlyForever --WomenProj (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and I added some basic information to the article, including about books she has written and co-authored, and without yet logging into the Wikipedia Library, my online search has found a few book reviews, e.g. 1, 2, 3. Beccaynr (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Some sources provided with print sources likely existing. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Live Mix, Part 2

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

Contested WP:PROD. WP:BEFORE doesn't come up with any non-trivial sources besides the single Allmusic review. Fails WP:NALBUM. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep: it's difficult to track down anything online, but Billboard had a review exclusive to its online website (not in the magazine), which to my amazement has been archived [43]... they also had an article giving the background to the group and the album a couple of months prior to the album's release [44]. There's also a minor mention of the album on page 62 of the March 2001 issue of Spin [45] but I'm not sure it's enough to be described as "in-depth coverage". I wouldn't be surprised if print issues of NME and Q also reviewed the album in the UK. Richard3120 (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Arizona Republic, the Boston Herald, and The Star-Ledger review it as well. Caro7200 (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Caro7200: I was just thinking about asking you if you could find anything in a newspaper search... the group is reasonably well known, so widespread print coverage would not have surprised me. Richard3120 (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are two issues here. The first is notability (other than for the lawsuit). In this regard, opinions are divided, although all who have commented after 4meter4 have found their sources convincing, so that part of the discussion probably tends towards a keep. The second issue is privacy. That problem, to the extent it is one, does not need deletion, but can be resolved by omitting personal information from the article. Sandstein 08:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suede (singer)

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

There is one reference on how Suede (singer) forced Suede (band) to change their trademarked name in the United States. This WP:BLP is basically a WP:SINGLEEVENT. A mention of this can be included in Suede (band) but that's about it. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per new evidence presented by User:4meter4 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or otherwise transfer the information about the trademark issues to the band's article. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot apparently this paragraph exists in Suede (band) already:

Moreover, a lounge singer's lawsuit forced the band to stop using the trademarked American name "Suede". For their subsequent releases and shows in the United States, the band used the name "The London Suede". Anderson was not happy about having to change the band's name for the US market, saying, "The London Suede is not the name I chose for the band, I didn't change it happily, and I'm not going to pretend I did." Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is not notable as a singer, I can't see any part of WP:NMUSIC that she meets. The only secondary coverage I can find on her, such as this, is related to her lawsuit against the band. It could also be redirected to Suede_(band)#1992–1993:_Signing_and_early_success where the lawsuit is mentioned.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I did a quick search and found these sources [[46]][[47]], but it's not very much. I also looked up the Live at Scullers Jazz Club DVD and couldn't find any reviews. I also unsuccessfully googled her with the Kennedy Center to see if there were reviews. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge. Maryland-based jazz singer Suzanne DeBronkart a.k.a. Suede has not achieved chart success with her music. The one thing she is known for is the 1993–1994 lawsuit against the UK Suede band. WaPo gave her a bunch of column inches in 1994, describing the issue in depth. Same with BalmerSun.[48] The successful lawsuit continues to crop up in the media, giving it a sort of staying power. It came up again in 2003 when the band Suede split up.[49] There's also the 2009 SFGate piece which describes her career in moderate depth. It gets another mention in 2019 in NME. I would say 'keep' except that other aspects of DeBronkart's career have not been so heavily discussed; it's mostly the old lawsuit that keeps reporters coming back. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing to merge because the lawsuit is already discussed, with a citation, at the English band's article. One or two more footnotes may be a benefit over there, and the voters above found some. "Merge" those if desired. Otherwise this singer has not received reliable coverage except for a few gig announcements here and there. I agree with the nominator on WP:SINGLEEVENT, and some voters above are recommending a merge that is unnecessary. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO. I found two quality music reviews which are not about the law suit and are significant independent RS. One is an album review of her album Barely Blue which pre-dates the lawsuit and the other is a concert review from 2001 which is also not about the lawsuit. Plus it is likely other pre law suit reviews exist offline given the pre internet era. I also found an encyclopedia entry on her in an LGBTQ reference work. Apologies for no urls as I accessed these through subscription access in PROQUEST or through other resources at my university library. These sources show that Suede is independently notable of the lawsuit and BLP1E doesn’t apply. The two reviews, the encyclopedia entry, plus the RS on the lawsuit are enough to pass GNG and MUSICBIO. See below.4meter4 (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harrington, Richard (4 May 2001). "SUEDE; On the Day We Met". The Washington Post. p. I6.
Joyce, Mike (31 January 1992). "Pop Soprano Suede Covering the Bases". The Washington Post. p. 14.
Jay McLaren (1992). "Suede". An encyclopaedia of gay and lesbian recordings. p. 89. more info on that ref at the University of Washington library see ([50])

Comment. @Doomsdayer520, Binksternet, Timtempleton, Pawnkingthree, 331dot, and Shushugah you may want to reconsider your position in light of the new evidence. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing that’s there is still not enough. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How? I just presented multiple independent references with significant coverage? These alone would seem to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO criteria 1. She has an encyclopedia entry for goodness sake and two reviews from respected music critics in The Washington Post. Then there is all the other quality RS about the lawsuit.4meter4 (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 4meter4. (The sources TimTempleton found fail criteria #1 of WP:SINGER, as the first source covers the artist talking about themselves and the second source is a performance date report.) Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have changed vote, but still need a better consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV as demonstrated by the sources found by 4meter4. TJMSmith (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm sticking with my earlier "delete" vote because the subject of the biography is worried about the danger of being harassed further. Concerns include "hate mail from the British band London Suede's fans... and even bona-fide stalkers, causing me to hire security" and "restraining orders and have had to hire security because they've tracked my home and my 92 year old mother's home down by finding my birth name." The subject is so adamant about the danger posed by the biography that they extended a legal threat to Wikipedia, later rescinded once they understood the WP:NLT policy. As this is a borderline notability case, I think we should give the subject some privacy by deleting the biography page. Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis that the above comments are from the artist who seems to regard the article as a privacy / security threat and always likely to be updated with private information. So although notable the article should go to respect the artist's wishes in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, Suedewave has said that they do not want the article deleted. But if they are concerned about their real name continuing to appear, deletion is the obvious solution.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear and for the record - NO threat of lawsuit or legal action against wiki was ever mentioned by me or my agents. Not once. The point was made (perhaps poorly worded, thus rescinded immediately) that anyone continuing to refer to the British band London Suede as Suede after the settled Trademark violation lawsuit, wherein I was victorious, is (likely unwittingly) not honoring the agreement settled by a NY court of law. NO threat was or is being made. I am well aware that the band's agents are the ones guilty of neglecting due diligence in this matter, which IS a direct violation of the suit on their part, FWIW. The band, btw, was great during the entire tedious process as Sony dragged it on and on. Sony was sued, not the band, to be clear, for the record.

As for continuing to publish my birth name, my real concern - again, I cite Wiki's WP:BLPPRIVACY clause and re-state my respectful request to please stop doing so, to honor my privacy. Ironically, a few have correctly stated the fact that the lawsuit really has nothing to do with my now 40 year successful and ongoing career as a full-time independent artist - whether some have heard of me or not. Thank you. Suedewave (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have many BLPs on wikipedia with similar privacy concern content bans. The real names and birth dates of celebrities come to mind. The answer is often semi-protection of articles, and hidden notes advising editors not to add certain content because of WP:BLPPRIVACY policy. In other words, we have options other than deletion. This is a surmountable issue that doesn't require deletion.4meter4 (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update, per WP:BOLD I went ahead and added a hidden note. In my view this should prevent further problems from happening.4meter4 (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The concerns about dates are also covered by WP:BLPDATES (don't include unless they can be reliable sourced; in addition to the privacy concerns as above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Consumer protection#United States as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Call For Action

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

Unreferenced. Non-notable term. I was thinking of prodding this, but I decided not to since the article has been around since 2004. SL93 (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very surprised this poorly written article was there for so many years. It should have been deleted long ago. Gentleman wiki (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Talk about a piece of useless mush. This was bad even by 2000s standards. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Consumer protection#United States Poor and out-of-date article, but local television stations across the United States still use this term to brand their consumer news and advocacy divisions and the hotlines they use to help consumers/find story ledes. If there's a better place to go with the rd, please feel free to share it. Nate • (chatter) 23:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nate • (chatter) 23:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recreational walks in Lancashire

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

I don't understand the point of a list with two non-notable recreational walks. SL93 (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is completely pointless and does not meet WP:NGEO. Gentleman wiki (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're not a travel guide. Ajf773 (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comments. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRAVEL. Its unlikely this can be covered in Wikipedia effectively, its more appropriate to included it if needed in particular place articles. Others in Category:Recreational walks in England could probably also be deleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is a mess and not notable, but I do not agree to deleting the other lists. Recreational walks in Lancashire, for example, seems fine to me. If others disagree, let us look at each one alone and not in a group. --Bduke (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spence Diamonds

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

This article appears to have been created for publicity purposes. It does not meet the WP:NCORP guidelines. Gentleman wiki (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gentleman wiki (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NCORP with the following sources (last 2 are more questionable, but they are from reliable outlets and didn't find evidence that they were sponsored/native ads):

Frei, Frances; Morriss, Anne (2012). Uncommon Service: How to Win by Putting Customers at the Core of Your Business. Harvard Business Press. p. 104-106. ISBN 978-1-4221-3331-6.
"Spence Diamonds rewrites guarantee following CBC investigation". CBC News. 2013-03-13.
Hoopfer, Evan (2019-08-16). "Company with U.S. headquarters in Dallas aims to disrupt diamond industry". Dallas Business Journal. Retrieved 2021-09-28.
"Retail therapy: Lab-grown diamonds debut in Dallas, and tax-free shopping in Texas this weekend". Dallas Morning News. 2019-05-24. Retrieved 2021-09-28.

Jumpytoo Talk 02:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The article may have been created for publicity purposes but that does not mean it has to remain that way (to some extent this seems like yet another example of a company that has gotten coverage in reliable sources, just not the kind PRs want to surface). The sources above aren't particularly great in terms of substantial details, but I added what I could. I had to go elsewhere for some of the more biographical points though. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Coolperson177 (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The PuLi Hotel and Spa

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

This article is using Wikipedia for advertisement. It clearly does not comply with WP:NCORP or WP:NGEO. Gentleman wiki (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gentleman wiki (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Gentleman wiki (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a "Hygienic issues" section translated from the Chinese Wikipedia. The article is much less of an advertisement now that it includes the sanitation scandal. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No longer promotional thanks to expansion by Eastmain. NemesisAT (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has been improved significantly since nomination, also has a full review in The Daily Telegraph, which is major WP:RS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mostly per the work done during this discussion. See some additional sourcing, which I'll try to get to during the course of this AfD. Star Mississippi 20:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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