Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 05	September 07 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urban solar energy association

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

contested A7, still unsourced. Fails NORG. dudhhr_Contribs 23:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. dudhhr_Contribs 23:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. dudhhr_Contribs 23:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources or proof of notability. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is terribley written . Catfurball (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional in tone too. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As is, fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. However, one quality RS source has been added to the article and looking at google books reveals many sources which mention the organization. Most of those are snippet view so it's possible that enough quality RS exists in those materials offline to meet NORG or GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 23:50, 13 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) 15:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partial password

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

I couldn't establish that it has the significance or coverage to meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-established concept, with coverage in numerous reliable sources. The fact that it has been "Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years" (in other words has had a notability tag on it for that long) is not a reason for deletion. Many inappropriate tags stay on articles for years, and others which were appropriate when they were first put there remain long after the issues they refer to have been rectified, just because nobody removes them. The king of the sun (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The way to resolve the category issue is to remove the drive-by banner tag. That was placed in 2009 when the page was first created as a sourceless stub. The page has since been expanded and sources added but such banner tags don't get attention because they are so vague and indiscriminate. The existence of a stale and erroneous banner tag is not a reason to delete per WP:NOTCLEANUP. You have to read and understand the topic, not its tags. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG based on significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources [1][2][3][4]. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above comments. This is notable enough with significant coverage to justify an article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable concept, and easily meets GNG. I will note that it's also interesting, but that is irrelevant (WP:INTERESTING). BilledMammal (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:39, 8 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 01:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richardson Recreation and Wellness Centre

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

If you check the history of this article, it previously went through XFD under a different name, with the decision being deletion. That was several years ago and the article still exists today. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swan River Kinsmen Pool. Am I missing something here? Rogermx (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original nominator has failed to give a valid rationale (this having been deleted previously would not be an actual argument for deletion; you can try WP:G4, but what appears to have been deleted is Swan River Kinsmen Pool, something entirely different). So instead, I'll give a proper rationale, and relist (to allow for actual discussion):

Fails WP:GNG, current article does not cite a single independent reliable source; and searches do not yield anything of further interest beyond directories, social media pages, and the like. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your analysis and the new rationale. My assumption is that if this were indeed a brand new article under the name Richardson Centre, it would not appear in the article history for Swan River. Rogermx (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable town facility, with little/no coverage in reliable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacking independent coverage. Sam Mehrab (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MyDirectives

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

Article with a very promotional tone made worse by IP edits in April 2020.

[5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] and [13] are passing mentions.

I have doubts that [14] and [15] are unbiased articles. [16] is an entry in a top 100. So I question if this company was ever notable to begin with. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yikes. WP:TNT applies here. The page we're hosting now is just an advertisement, and should be removed. If the topic is notable (in a quick web search, all the sources I'm seeing look promotional), someone should start a new article from scratch. Ajpolino (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that, even if notable, WP:TNT applies, and I don't find anything notable. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even leaving aside the TNT angle (which I agree with), the criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. So, on top of TNT, even with "cleanup" to reduce the promotional tone, topic still fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Brianna Wiest. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Mountain Is You

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK. Google gives no indication that the book had any significant coverage: only related coverage on Google News is primary-source Medium article. ‒overthrows 21:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ‒overthrows 21:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage whatsoever about this book in reliable sources. The referencing in the article is to the book itself which is about as primary as it gets. -- Whpq (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brianna Wiest. I agree that this book doesn't seem to have received any substantial coverage from reliable sources; it fails WP:NBOOK. Redirecting to the author seems like a reasonable WP:ATD, if nothing else per WP:CHEAP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Extraordinary Writ. Sam Mehrab (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Extraordinary Writ.4meter4 (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Björn Rosengren (manager)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 23:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. DarwinClean (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above account, DarwinClean, has requested an indefinite block after I politely questioned his immediate AfD and content trimming participation as characteristic of an older account. To the best of my knowledge, no misconduct was identified nor Checkuser tool run, but closing admins may want to take this unusual turn of events under advisement. Jclemens (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rosengren is the CEO of a big international company (revenue: 28 billion). Moreover, I could find several references about Rosengren (some in English, some in Swedish and some in German) and would be willing to improve the article. Btw his predecessor Peter Voser has an article as well...Tec Tom (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rosengren is, as has been noted above, the CEO of a company with a revenue of USD ~28 billion (2019), ABB. He has previously served as the CEO of Wärtsilä and Sandvik. There are numerous articles about him just in the Swedish news; I've expanded the article into a very basic bio using a couple of them as sources. Passes WP:GNG with just what's been written about him in Swedish, but as Tec Tom points above (feel free to expand on what little I've done!) there's more that could be added. /Julle (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable CEO of a major company. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that it's been rewritten. Needs better sources, but definintely notable. – SJ + 03:32, 8 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. ✗plicit 23:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandRidge Center

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

It exists, but I'm not convinced it meets WP:BUILDING or WP:GNG, though there is a level of coverage. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved significantly since nomination by Eastmain. It appears the tower has since been renamed Strata Tower, perhaps the article should be moved too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NemesisAT (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Insofar as the notability guidelines are concerned in reference to this article, in addition to the building winning multiple awards (fulfilling the "award winning" guideline), per WP:NBUILDING, it is notable in a social manner as a prominent skyscraper (the 7th tallest) in Oklahoma City (one of the 25 most populous cities in the US,) the home office of two state agencies for the state of Oklahoma and in the historical manner it is notable the headquarters of two different major oil and gas companies. Furthermore, it is featured prominently in artistic depictions of the Oklahoma City Skyline, contributing to its social importance and attesting to a non-temporary state of notability. Pona12 (talk ) 15:12, 13 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Salvation Army U.S.A. Central Territory

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Not convinced it is worth merging/redirecting to The Salvation Army. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect there's nothing sourced to reliable sources worth merging, but it could be a valid search term. Star Mississippi 23:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is this the equivalent of a Catholic diocese or archdiocese? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Eastmain: from The Salvation Army U.S.A. Western Territory it seems a little more than religious jurisdiction, but that's not well-sourced, so I'm not positive. Star Mississippi 00:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a large enough institution that should have enough coverage such as this to be included with 2000 + centers,imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- According to the article the Savation Army in USA is organised into 4 territories. This one covers over 2300 separate establishments. This is certainly on a scale similar to or superior to a diocese, so that it is certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. In doing WP:BEFORE search I did find some significant independent RS. A relatively detailed history of the territory is provided in Allen Satterlee, John G. Merritt, ed. (2017). Historical Dictionary of The Salvation Army. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp. 587–592.. There is also some independent coverage on the territory in Chuck Munson (2013). The Salvation Army in Dallas: The Supply Chain Challenges of a Non-Profit Organization. Pearson Education. The music journal Bandmaster also has several articles on the music and bands of the central territory. Further, this source designates the regions in the same way dioceses are organized, and as such I concur with Peterkingiron that this indicates further notability.4meter4 (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Saleebey

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

Indications towards WP:PROF but not enough to be convincing and doesn't meet WP:GNG. After 12 years in CAT:NN, hopefully we can resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He has a strong citation record and a few book reviews but it's mostly due to his editorship of a book on the strengths perspective in social work, a theory for which his wife Ann Weick (about whom we don't have an article) deserves the bigger share of the credit. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein:, Ann Weick is now blue but stubby.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PROF-C1. Strong citation record, including this article where he is sole author with over 4,000 citations. This book, after his death, says he is "known as the father of the strengths perspective". This 2019 book has biographical entries for both Weick and Saleebey, and extensive coverage of their work. There is an entry in the Encyclopedia of Social Work. Unlike many other academics, GNG is actually plausible here.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:Prof#C1.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strong pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:Prof#C1 and also for his wife Ann Weick, thanks @Eostrix:. --hroest 09:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Final Inch. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Gulzar Saifi

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG except for his role in one film, which makes this a WP:BLP1E. Limited participation last time leading to no consensus; after 12 years in CAT:NN, I hope we can finally get an answer on this. Boleyn (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Final Inch as ATD. I don’t see the sources to support standalone notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Final Inch this is clearly relevant information we should keep but not enough for a standalone article. --hroest 09:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ammy Kang

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

Non notable singer and actor. Fails WP:GNG Princepratap1234 (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:00, 7 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) 18:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Old Wives Tales

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

This list is a very good example of WP:LISTCRUFT. No citations either. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete already exists at List of common misconceptions, and this name with the incorrect capitalization and punction is unlikely. I've added a link to that at Old wives' tale. Reywas92^Talk 00:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have a List of common misconceptions. Also some of these things are actually true. The Omega 3 in fish does increase brain development in the womb, so babies are born smarter. Fish is thus a brain food. Dream Focus 00:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT and totally original research. Ajf773 (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsourced original research. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR as noted above -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meets the definition of 'List Cruft'. Shrikanthv (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable yet. Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and OR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:45, 13 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. ✗plicit 23:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love You to Death (2019 film)

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

Despite it it being a dramatization inspired by the Dee Dee Blanchard murder from 2015, this is a non-notable film that lacks significant coverage. Pahiy (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard#Television~~ Where it's elaborated on, and retain categories. Nate • (chatter) 01:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Switched to keep There are plenty of sources, the film stars a freakin' Oscar winner, and I've had enough of this sudden 'anything that fills two hours on Hallmark or Lifetime is unnotable trash' direction AfD has been going lately; GNG is met. There are plenty of unnotable crap action films that should be paraded here before this one. Nate • (chatter) 02:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A film based on a real event on a major nationwide cable network? Starring notable actors? Seems like it would be notable to me. And I see sufficient sourcing to support that. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the film might meet GNG, but notability is not inherited, the fact that it is based on a real event is irrelevant here, and showing on a major nationwide cable network does not necessarily indicate notability either as far as I am aware. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the film might meet GNG, then everything else you have to say is irrelevant. Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources cited in the article demonstrate that it passes WP:GNG. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the fact that it is inspired by the Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard and also by the claims of @Mrschimpf:, @Daniel Case:, @Milowent:, @Pharaoh of the Wizards:, and @TipsyElephant:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:22, 13 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. Per Czar's commentary on the suitability of student newspapers as significant coverage of school-related organizations. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Opera Productions

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

No sources. Internet search reveals no extensive independent coverage. Josefaught (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though the article no doubt needs extensive cleanup and updating there are plenty of sources. I would like to note that this deletion request is clearly inappropriate retaliatory behavior by Josefaught, which operates as an ostensible sockpuppet account. Filetime (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Now sourced. Apparently, Josefaught (talk · contribs) is on a spree of AfDs for Brown University-related articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Student opera group covered only in the Brown Daily Herald. See WP:MILL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is all to a publication of Brown University itself. Thus there is no indepdent coverage which is one of the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Eight references added by Filetime. Brown Daily Herald is financially independent and student run, so I feel it is acceptable to count it as independent in this case. WP:MILL is an essay and completely subjective - it doesn't overrule GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student newspapers are not reliable sources. They should not be cited in encyclopedia articles nevertheless used as the main sources. If coverage of this topic is not wider than the university itself, we have our answer for how the wider world views the topic's noteworthiness. I would normally recommend a redirect to Brown University#Student_life (WP:ATD-R) but not without any external sources. czar 02:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article were using only student newspaper as a source. DarwinClean (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above account, DarwinClean, has requested an indefinite block after I politely questioned his immediate AfD and content trimming participation as characteristic of an older account. To the best of my knowledge, no misconduct was identified nor Checkuser tool run, but closing admins may want to take this unusual turn of events under advisement. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more sources other than the school newspaper are cited. MiracleMat (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MindGarage

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

As far as I can tell, fails WP:GNG. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite the cool name, fails notability. W Nowicki (talk) 17:41, 13 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. Sandstein 11:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Qur'an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English

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

The subject of this article does not meet WP:NBOOK. Book-jacket reviews fail #1. There are about about 30 citations, as obtained from GScholar (after eliminating predatory journals, term papers etc.) TrangaBellam (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google Scholar mentions 114 works that cite this book. That's quite a lot for a work of this type. Many, perhaps more than half, of these 114 citations seem reliable and independent sources, so the only question (per WP:NBOOK) would be if at least two of them would do more than just passingly mention the book. I haven't gone through them, but I don't believe for a moment that this should not be the case. Also meets some of the special notability criteria for academic and technical books: it is quite clearly widely cited, and one or more translations of the book have been published. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An English translation of Quoran, the holiest scripture of about a quarter of world's population, is an academic and technical book? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, they are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. Not to mention 114 citations on Google Scholar. Hey, Ali Ünal isn't the most accomplished academic for sure, but it definitely falls within the category. I know I'd be glad with 114 cites! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's take Haleem's translation as a benchmark. What is the citation count? More importantly, how many reviews did it get over reputed journals? If I am not wrong, it was released exactly an year earlier than Ünal's one (and has since been through three editions).
    The count of 114 is quite overestimated. As I said, it is about 30; I spotted a paragraph of discussion over here (p. 625) and nothing else of significance struck out. I have my sympathies for Ünal's fate (his article can be expanded by a lot) but at best, this can be merged with Ali Ünal. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This shoddy but well-documented thesis (yet to be cited by anyone) might be used to add something but PhD theses don't contribute to WP:NBOOK. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Provides more light than shade. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to clarify how NBOOK is met. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the following reasons:

Just a quick search in the normal Google search, Google Books search, and Google Scholar will give you enough coverage about the notability of this book.
The book has been translated into Spanish (El Sagrado Corán Y Su Interpretación Comentada) after two years of its publication, which increases its notability.
Furthermore, this book has garnered some positive reviews from some academics and scholars, including: Fetullah Gülen, Bernadette Andrea, B. Jill Carroll, and others.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEagle107 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am competent enough to know the web-address of Google. WP:MUSTBESOURCES. You need to point at specific resource.

The translation is by two little known authors (1, [ 2]) from a press which is hardly known. What does that prove?

Book-cover reviews fail NBOOK. Find me a single detailed review in a journal.

Sign your posts and cease with the edit-warring. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met; NBOOK is an optional SNG that every book need not meet to be notable. I am highly reluctant to discount translations of the Quran, as I believe that would be using Islamic doctrine of the supremacy of the Quran in Arabic against the notability of translations. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to show how GNG is met. Notwithstanding that your second line makes little sense. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources cited above in the AfD are sufficient, in my opinion, whether you like them or not. Your combination of badgering and not understanding the systemic bias concern I raised makes you look like a bully. It's not a good look, and so far has failed to sway a single participant to your side. I strongly suggest switching tactics. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as many books cite it, and there are many entries in google books.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aubrey Rinehart

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

Fails WP:ENT. No sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG almost entirely. Barely even passing mentions is the scant references given. Also, complete WP:SPIP in the article's creation and editing. ExRat (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian K. Jackson

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

Looks like advertising; I don't see notability for him or his music industry career. I searched Google for the titles of the articles given as references, and they didn't come up. So either the articles are not online for some reason or the references are entirely fabricated. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:07, 6 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) 18:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless Framework Telecommunication (code name: Beep)

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

I can find no Google search results for "Wireless Framework Telecommunication" (besides mirrors of this article). As such, I'm unsure if this topic is hypothetical or original research. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 16:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 16:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 16:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the Beep website, there's nothing happening since 2007 and I don't see any independent mention of this protocol. And why is there a yoga tips link (dead) on the page?-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 18:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a distinctly dead project with no real notability. Can't find anything talking about the "Beep protocol" (there's an unrelated protocol with the same name) other than the SourceForge page and this article. Alex Martin (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable software that never caught on, despite this article! W Nowicki (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.

The parallel discussions of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable surviving veterans of World War II (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood concern similar articles and cover essentially the same ground, so in closing this discussion I have taken into account all three discussions, as well as previous AfDs.

The count of !votes has been rendered useless by, if not exactly canvassing, an influx of a large number of editors who are clearly not very familiar with either our inclusion guidelines or the deletion policy. However, while the delete side generally put forth a consistent and policy-based argument---that a list that by definition will be empty in X years cannot be encyclopaedic---the case for keeping the articles is significantly undermined by a reliance on assertions that the topic is interesting, harmless, or some other argument conventionally considered invalid at AfD.

With a few exceptions, those in favour of keep failed to either refute the argument for deletion, or put forward their own policy-based reason for keeping the article. On that basis, I see a clear consensus to delete all three lists. – Joe (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War

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

Same reason as List of notable surviving World War 2 veterans— notability is not temporary, this list will be pointless in 10 years. Dronebogus (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we delete every article that's on here because people find it interesting, we'd lose a third of Wikipedia. This article hurts no one. Bkatcher (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I said “it’s interesting” wasn’t a valid argument to keep something, not that it was my reasoning for deleting something. And if you’re going to argue about something trivial I said you should do it on the page it’s actually written on. Dronebogus (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of video games notable for negative reception is an actual list. Honestly your a bit short-sighted there are tons of list on Wikipedia that probably should be deleted for your exact reasoning but you seem to have some kind of agenda with list dealing with surviving of a certain area, oldest living, etc. They are still relevant as long as you can have current content. --Tommieboi (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I explained my reasoning: it is an actual part of the GNG that notability isn’t temporary. If an article is about a topic that literally will not exist within the foreseeable future then it fails the GNG on that basis! Additionally why the Spanish Civil War of all conflicts? Why is it so outstandingly important out of all the conflicts of the same era to get a whole article on this trivial subject, especially when pretty much all the individuals listed are not in and of themselves notable? Dronebogus (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely pointless diminishing list, people get old and die, what is the encyclopedic value in this, other than that some old veterans get their names in Wikipedia? Mztourist (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. Most of the veterans on this list don't have Wikipedia pages. Many are missing important identifying information like birth dates. I'm sure they are (or were) veterans, but we have no way of knowing that they're alive, and it's unreasonable to assume that their deaths would be widely publicized. Also fails WP:NOTTEMPORARY, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, ... pburka (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the list will be pointless in 10 years then delete it in 10 years. In the meantime, it seems reasonably detailed, notable and useful so what's the rush? Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about it is notable and useful? Mztourist (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTTEMPORARY and I do not believe has a strong case for meeting WP:GNG nor WP:LISTN. A quick look at the article's talk page demonstrates the massive WP:V issues inherent with this topic especially in regards to WP:BLP (I don't think it is the job of editors to determine whether or not someone is alive). In 5-10 years (or less) this list will be completely empty which tells you everything you need to know. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per List of surviving World War I veterans, inherently notable. When the last veteran dies it will be redirected as was WWI and all other lists of last survivors. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure how this squares with WP:NOTTEMPORARY. How about an eventual move to List of former surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War? Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Andrew and DerbyCountyinNZ. Thescrubbythug (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I urge everyone here to examine this article's talk page to see first-hand the BLP and verifiability problems of this page. These veterans are obscure private individuals and names are being removed on the advice of family members. pburka (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Tommieboi. 172.58.110.212 (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing wrong with any of these types of lists: Category:Last living survivors. Deleting something because it may be blank in the future, is not a valid reason for deletion. When the last survivors of any war do die, they will get mention for this in newspapers. Dream Focus 01:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That category is for individuals who became notable for being the last of their respective groups, or lists of individuals who became such. Not for a hundred random people who were among the last surviving members of a group at an arbitrary point. Dronebogus (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important list, which will shrink to zero anyhow within the next years.Nillurcheier (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is important about it? As it will shrink to zero, what is the point? Mztourist (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tommieboi. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, as a trivial cross-categorisation ("living people" and "Spanish civil war veterans") WP:NOTDIRECTORY; and as ultimately redundant to List of people of the Spanish Civil War. In addition to the massive issue of WP:V and WP:LISTN (editors thinking that something is "interesting" or "important" is not a good argument if they can't back it up with reliable sources which say the same thing). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current form. WP:NOTTEMPORARY covers that approach. The way to record the (by our criteria) actually permanently notable members of this group is by selecting out the last survivors within particular subsets, as has been done at List of last surviving veterans of World War II. I suggest transforming or excerpting the article into that kind of shape; the current version is a no-go. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pburka. Agree with Elmidae about a better model for a list with similar material. We could draftify the list with the intention of reformatting it after the design at List of last surviving veterans of World War II.4meter4 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pburka. QubeCube (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per pburka. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.

The parallel discussions of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable surviving veterans of World War II (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood concern similar articles and cover essentially the same ground, so in closing this discussion I have taken into account all three discussions, as well as previous AfDs.

The count of !votes has been rendered useless by, if not exactly canvassing, an influx of a large number of editors who are clearly not very familiar with either our inclusion guidelines or the deletion policy. However, while the delete side generally put forth a consistent and policy-based argument---that a list that by definition will be empty in X years cannot be encyclopaedic---the case for keeping the articles is significantly undermined by a reliance on assertions that the topic is interesting, harmless, or some other argument conventionally considered invalid at AfD.

With a few exceptions, those in favour of keep failed to either refute the argument for deletion, or put forward their own policy-based reason for keeping the article. On that basis, I see a clear consensus to delete all three lists. – Joe (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable surviving veterans of World War II

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

Notability is not temporary. Back when Wikipedia was founded there were quite a few surviving WW1 veterans, but now there are none. A “list of oldest living…” article is only useful for groups that are not finite in number, like “list of living centenarians”. Dronebogus (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to keep this article, the argument that there are now no WW1 veterans is irrelevant, the title includes Living and as long as there are living veterans then the article is valid.....

- Yes, it is relevant. Articles must be about topics that will actually *exist* in the foreseeable future. There will be no more living WW2 vets in what is likely to be under a decade, thus the topic of the article will be nonexistent in the foreseeable future. Therefore the article is invalid. Dronebogus
  - Two hundred years+ later, people are still debating who the last Revolutionary War soldier was. As with the WWI article, this will eventually redirect to Last surviving veterans of insurgencies and wars page. Just because it'll be irrelevant in 10-15 years doesn't mean we should delete it now. Bkatcher (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 20:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How many times is someone going to nominate the article? It's interesting and relevant. Bkatcher (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The first nomination was closed without a consensus, the second was a pile-on “keep” vote by fans of the article that had little to do with its quality, and the third was for differnt reasons than my nom and the other two. My argument is that an article with an expiration date violates the principle that notability is not finite. Also, “it’s interesting” isn’t an argument, and neither is anything you said about veterans in other wars or what happened to older articles. Dronebogus (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'Pile on votes by fans of the article'? Odd way of saying other wikipedians didn't share your opinion so you felt their votes shouldn't count. Bkatcher (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps, but I didn’t think their arguments were in line with Wikipedia’s deletion policy (unless the idea of non-temporary notability was only added very recently? I honestly don’t know) Dronebogus (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is determined by existing sources, so if there are sources that discuss this topic now it is a notable topic for an article. There are sources which discuss the topic of living WW2 veterans as a group, for example [[17]], [[18]], and [[19]]. In my opinion this article passes the notability requirements at WP:LISTN. Rhino131 (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but I think that’s irrelevant if it violates the principle of “notability is not temporary”. If those articles were written 30 years ago about WW1 vets, would that be a reason to have an article on WW1 vets alive in the 90s? Of course not. Dronebogus (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not irrelevant if it means the article passes notability requirements and GNG. Why should your argument mean mine be discounted? If an article passes GNG, it passes GNG. And I believe it does. Rhino131 (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because my argument is also derived from the GNG, and it’s a better argument based on it. That’s how arguments work— if one person has a better argument the other is discounted. Deletion isn’t a popularity contest where all votes are equal. Dronebogus (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - From Wikipedia:Notability "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." I argue that reliable, independent sources can be found on this topic, therefore it passes the core component of GNG. "Better argument" is not for us to decide and I leave it up to the community to gain consensus. Rhino131 (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        What reliable sources allow us to verify that these 500-plus people are alive in September 2021? pburka (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        People are removed from the list if there is no recent evidence they are alive. That does not change to the notability of the article topic, which as I said it passes, and I don't feel it is a valid reason in and of itself to delete the page. Clearly we have a different opinion on this, so let's end the debate here. Rhino131 (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        You just said yourself that "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable". Almost nobody on this list is verifiably living. pburka (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of video games notable for negative reception is an actual list. Honestly your a bit short-sighted there are tons of list on Wikipedia that probably should be deleted for your exact reasoning but you seem to have some kind of agenda with list dealing with surviving of a certain area, oldest living, etc. They are still relevant as long as you can have current content.--Tommieboi (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I explained my reasoning: it is an actual part of the GNG that notability isn’t temporary. If an article is about a topic that literally will not exist within the foreseeable future then it fails the GNG on that basis! Dronebogus (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is still a current topic where it contains people who are still living.. it's still a keep --Tommieboi (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely pointless diminishing list, people get old and die, what is the encyclopedic value in this? Mztourist (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important information, which is restricted to notable persons. will shrink to zero within the next 15 Years anyhow. Nillurcheier (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You’re just affirming my point— if it will eventually cease to exist then the subjects were only notable for a limited amount of time, which means they functionally are not notable since “temporary notability” isn’t a thing on WP. Dronebogus (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it your position that this topic has enduring notability? 50 years from now, will it still be a notable topic? pburka (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability depends on sources and, nowadays, sources tend to endure. As for 50 years from now, that's not what we are concerned with here: we are working on the Wikipedia of today. See Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This list will most probably be empty in the next 10-15 years. I cannot think of more compelling evidence of the transience (or temporariness) of this topic. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a WP:CRYSTAL prediction. HUman lifespan is steadily increasing and might take a big step forward in that time. So why don't we just cross that bridge when we come to it? Deleting the page as it approaches its peak of utility and notability would be perverse. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no realistic way human lifespan extension technology can be developed fast enough to prevent a bunch of 90-somethings from all dying within the next 15 years or so. That’s an even more absurd use of WP:CRYSTAL that’s purely in the realm of science fiction. By your logic we couldn’t write articles about future NASA missions just because aliens might hypothetically invade and wipe out life on Earth… which is still slightly more plausible then what you’re suggesting. Dronebogus (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - See sources such as Changes in life expectancy 1950–2010 which explains that "Since 1840, life expectancy of the best performing country in each year has been increasing almost linearly by 2.5 years per decade." So this has already been happening for some time. I visited my father yesterday. He lived through WW2 and is still in reasonably good health. The suggestion that people like him should be considered beyond hope is not accepted. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The oldest person ever was 122 when she died. In 15 years some of the youngest people on this list will be over a hundred… assuming they’re even still alive right now. And based on that calculus you provided the average lifespan of people in developed countries should increase from 85-90 to 87-92, not to over 120. Dronebogus (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Andrew - When (or if) all those on the list have died would you support a move to List of notable former surviving veterans of World War II? This would, in my opinion, show the topic meets WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Moves are not done by deletion. It is normal for tenses in our articles to change as events such as the Olympics move from the future to the present to the past. This is done by ordinary editing. As for WP:NOTTEMPORARY, this supports Keep because it explains that "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1. Classic WP:LISTCRUFT. 2. A category masquerading as a list. Fails WP:LSC, the vast majority of people on this list are not notable as veterans, this is incidental to their notability. How many of people on the list are mentioned as WWII veterans in the first line of their lede? 3. As pointed out here the article should not contain "notable" in the article title. Without "notable" in the title it would clearly unmanageable as there are still millions of "non-notable" veterans (Note that it took 6 years before the article title was reverted to include "notable"). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's classic WP:CRUFTCRUFT. See also WP:NOTDUPE, "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've had so many experiences over the last decade of the 'hand of history' passing over me as I edit Wikipedia and this is certainly one of them. All of these individuals are notable, and as the article shrinks it shall become a vital resource for future historians. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what about this list will be "a vital resource for future historians"? How is knowing a declining list of surviving notable WWII veterans relevant for future historians or anyone for that matter? Mztourist (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They could draw abitary links betweem them as modern non-fic scribblers are wont to do. No Swan So Fine (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you’re admitting there’s no serious, realistic use of this list to anyone, let alone future historians? Dronebogus (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list might be temporary, just as List of surviving veterans of World War One declined until it was turned into a redirect in 2012. However, this doesn't mean that the notability is temporary; the topic has been covered in reliable sources sufficient to meet GNG, and this coverage will only increase over the next ten to twenty years. This is broad, long-lasting notability, and this notability will continue after the individuals covered has passed, morphing into List of last surviving veterans of World War Two. BilledMammal (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I can sort of buy that. That’s a lot more reasonable than “I like it” or “whatabout XYZ”. Still, you’re implying that “list of last surviving veterans of WW2 who are also notable for things other than that” is somehow a logical cross-categorization. Dronebogus (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The cross-categorization is problematic, and might be evidence of this being WP:TOOSOON, but determining when we pass from "too soon" to the "right time" is difficult, and since we know the "right time" is inevitable I believe we are better just keeping and improving this article, rather than having a frequent debate about whether "now" is the "right time". BilledMammal (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree that it's TOOSOON. A handful of the people on this list appear to, in fact, be "last surviving veterans." e.g. Ben Ferencz is the last surviving Nuremberg prosecutor. A growing list of last surviving veterans would be much more appropriate than this list of 580 veterans selected from among the million or more still living. pburka (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @BilledMammal: I've boldly gone ahead and started the List of last surviving veterans of World War II. pburka (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V and WP:N among others.

The entries are almost all unverifiable. We don't have any references that say these people are living, or even that they were recently alive. As far as I can tell, inclusion in this list relies on Wikipedia editors trying and failing to find obituaries for each of the more than 500 people. That's both original research and unreliable.
The list is an unencyclopedic cross-categorization of (a) people who are veterans of WWII, and (b) who were young at the time, and (c) who did something else notable, and (d) who are (probably) alive today. There's little connection between these categories.
Any notability the group has is temporary, as we know that in another decade or two there will be no living veterans and the list will be deleted. Wikipedia requires that topics have enduring significance (see WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENTCRIT, and WP:NOTTEMPORARY). That we (almost) all agree that this list will be deleted in the foreseeable future shows that the topic's notability isn't enduring.
On the surface, the argument that this will eventually evolve into a "Last surviving veterans" page is compelling, but it's inaccurate and WP:CRYSTAL. These aren't the oldest surviving veterans: it includes only notable veterans (mostly notable for something unrelated to the war). Tens of millions of soldiers fought in the war and there are certainly thousands of veterans still living. I would support creating List of last surviving veterans of World War II and populating it with, e.g. Emil Boček , Lawrence Brooks (American veteran), Benjamin B. Ferencz, John Hemingway, and Kazimierz Klimczak, but that's not this list.

pburka (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTTEMPORARY and I do not believe has a strong case for meeting WP:GNG nor WP:LISTN. I think there are probably WP:V issues with this one as well. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this is an unencyclopedic cross categorization. Per Pburka, a large majority of those on the list are notable for things unrelated to their military service. Reywas92^Talk 14:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HTRIVIA-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listing everyone notable enough to have a Wikipedia article who is still alive and served in World War 2, is a valid grouping, clearly defined inclusion criteria, and aids in navigation. Far more useful than the category for this since it allows more information to be presented. Dream Focus 01:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it’s just a meaningless piece of trivia since they generally aren’t notable for their military service. Dronebogus (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't this be better as a category? Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  We already have categories for WWII participants and living people. What's the point of merging them (in a list)? Those concepts are notable separately but together... not so much. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's your opinion it’s just a meaningless piece of trivia, not everyone agrees, they do not have to be notable for their military service as the title says its a list of notable survivors, so they can be notable for any part of life but have to have served in ww2.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.211.240 (talk) 16:37, September 9, 2021 (UTC)

That’s circular reasoning. “The article is notable because it says it is.” The problem is that these are people not notable for military service or lifespan being treated as notable for military service and lifespan just because they’re long-lived veterans who are also notable for other reasons. It’s an arbitrary cross-categorization that is more trivial than encyclopedic. Dronebogus (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Weird inclusion criteria; in a few more years there'll sadly be none and the problem resolves itself, but since when do we even entertain the idea of such temporary lists? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Longer than Piotrus has been here. When the list gets short, the final survivors then become timeless. See Last surviving United States war veterans, for example – a page that has existed since 2003. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- We have no idea who those people are even going to be at this point. Keeping a “waiting list” of 500+ random people who happen to have a Wikipedia article for the next 15 years waiting to find out is completely silly. Most of these people wouldn’t even count towards logical sub-categories (i.e. who cares about the last surviving pianist to fight in WW2?) Dronebogus (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People do care about the last surviving veterans, and though you don't (Dronebogus) doesn't mean others don't this list is used, is valid and has historical meaning, it is a source of information often used by me and i suspect many other users...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Endsord (talk • contribs) 00:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your posts please. You seem to be a very inactive User with a very narrow focus. You say the page "a source of information often used by me" for what? Mztourist (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need to ask permission or advise you of what i use the list for, and if i am an inactive user again none of your business. SO a source of information used by me is sufficient for you....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Endsord (talk • contribs) 03:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your inactivity and unfamiliarity with the basics of WP undermines your claims as to the importance of this list. Mztourist (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ad hominem attack! Bkatcher (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s valid if the user’s inexperience is clearly demonstrated by their poor arguments. Wikipedia requires basic competence, after all. Dronebogus (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you too are so good, that only your opinion seems to matter. should you two really be allowed to decide on what is deleted and what isnt because i as a user am not as experienced, down right pig headedness.... now give it a rest eh boys...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Endsord (talk • contribs) 13:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could start by signing your posts and using proper spelling and capitalization to at least make it seem like you’re willing to have a modicum of professionalism. Dronebogus (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does insulting me make you feel better, it probably does, because you are probably an internet warrior, as hard as your keyboard... Grow up... Your going to get this article deleted come what may, that's crystal clear, just from reading your responses you can tell that you have decided that and no matter what anyone else says thats going to happen.. Conversation over.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Endsord (talk • contribs) 04:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not trying to insult you, I’m advising you to follow basic guidelines on writing style and editing. You’re the one making baseless personal attacks that have nothing to do with my arguments or ability to edit Wikipedia. Also, I have no unilateral authority to delete this article; and AfD is a debate, not a popularity contest (see WP:VOTE). If you believe this article shouldn’t be deleted explain why it passes WP guidelines for notability (see: WP:N) rather than making unverifiable claims about how beloved it supposedly is. Dronebogus (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what if we just turned this into a redirect to List of last surviving veterans of World War Two right now? It solves the major complaints about the article while preserving the content it contains for potential future use. Dronebogus (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- They're really two separate articles. Most people here were not the 'last' of anything, and not everyone in the other article is especially notable. Nice suggestion, though. Let's keep working together. Bkatcher (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well most people here are not notable for participating in WW2, while everyone at the other article is even if they don’t currently have enough sources for their own article. So most people here don’t make sense being treated as notable for being WW2 vets because they’re mostly notable for other things, whereas everyone at the other article IS notable for being a WW2 vet since they’re the all the last in a certain category related to the war. In conclusion, the other article is a superior substitute for this one since the notability criteria make much more sense. Dronebogus (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pburka --Khajidha (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a topic with significant coverage and sourcing.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And where is the coverage of this topic as a an actual topic and not just random “oldest living XYZ…” articles? Dronebogus (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, always suspicious on its face when the AFD nominator proceeds to !vote a particular way and is maniacally driven to rebut every alternative view. In past AFD attempts, my first impression was that this article was better presented as cross-categorization. Some very cogent wikipedians shared their reasoning that this list gave space to briefly explain someone's service or notability in ways that a simple scan of categories doesn't allow. This has been a useful reference for those attempting to understand what living veterans of WWII might be out there. The comparison to an article about a pro sports season, such as the 2021_NFL_season is apt. We all know that the season will end at some point, with some degree of likelihood (pandemic-driven delays much?) and as of this writing, the article exists and present a view of the topic at this moment in time.Cander0000 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but there aren’t articles listing currently living players in the ‘21 NFL season, or the ‘68 NFL season, or any other seasons, because that’s an arbitrary cross-categorization that will inevitably become nonexistent and irrelevant. I keep arguing with almost every !keep vote because most of them are variations on “I like it” which isn’t an argument or “well it’ll just be deleted anyway” which is exactly my argument for deletion. Now are you actually going to provide a policy-based refutation to my arguments or are you just going to complain about them existing? Dronebogus (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Additionally I’ve also proposed turning this into a redirect for List of last surviving veterans of World War Two, which is a similar but more logical and less finite article. Doing so would leave page history intact but out of general view. Dronebogus (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A pro-sports season is very different. The number of games in the 1968 NFL season hasn't gone down since then, and a list of the games won't wither away to nothingness as time passes. This list is more similar to something like "List of NFL games in the 2021 season that have yet to be played". --Khajidha (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Rhino131 and Tommieboi. 172.58.110.212 (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's too early. When it goes below 400 or somewhere around there it could be replaced with List of last surviving veterans of World War II. --Dorglorg (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the people on this list are celebrities or politicians who happen to be veterans. Do you think it's likely that any of these ~600 people (of the over 1 million living veterans) will be the last surviving veterans? pburka (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not my point. I think this article is Wikipedia-worthy and shouldn't be scrapped yet, and the new article isn't ready to replace it as the last WWII veteran isn't projected to die until the 2040s.--Dorglorg (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apologies. I misunderstood you. Do you mean that this article is notable for now, but will lose notability in the future as it shrinks? pburka (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes.--Dorglorg (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well that makes no sense as a “keep” argument since notability can’t disappear— it’s either notable forever or it was never notable in the first place. Dronebogus (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Just reread my second post for my argument. You can replace the word "notable" with "relevant" then as I wasn't trying to get into any notability arguments.--Dorglorg (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pburka QubeCube (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical importance of ww2 compared to regular sporting events like NFL seasons obvious. Media interest and coverage of surviving veterans proved by almost every single article listed here including their sources. Fulfills WP:NOTTEMPORARY as the topic of this article will be relevant even when there will be only 100 veterans left and it will be possible to create a redirect to another article. A redirect to List of last surviving veterans of World War Two is impossible at the moment without vandalizing Wikpedia's quality as the latter article only contains 16 surviving veterans compared to the 597 veterans listed here. Renewal6 (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— Renewal6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pburka (talk • contribs) 18:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I genuinely assume that the fact that I'm a newcomer at Wikipedia won't be used as a means to ridicule my IMHO reasonable arguments. Renewal6 (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes but disruptively, inappropriately, and prematurely closing an AfD discussion in an attempt at getting what you want will be. Dronebogus (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I had already undone it, before you commented, considering it to be inappropriate for myself, so no constructive need for a reply like that. If getting what I want is in line with arguments, I consider it as neither disruptive nor premature. Renewal6 (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - You seem to be pretty experienced, but in case you weren't familiar, the guidelines for non-admin discussion closure are at WP:NACD. pburka (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, thank you and mea culpa considering the fourth paragraph! Renewal6 (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Rhino and Tommyboi. - wolf 20:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited, so WWII being significant does not mean that a list of living veterans is. Unless you can find sources to back up WP:LISTN, then this is just the usual trivial cross-categorisation based on the intersection of "WWII veterans" and "living". To quote someone else, yes, this is a possible way to list this topic, but so would be "WWII veterans" and "born on a Wednesday". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)
Delete The fact is that many of these people don't have any indication that they are alive is concerning. Lists should be permanently notable, not temporarily. Many people of all walks of life served in WW2, it is generally not a defining trait. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Which specific veterans do you see here whose living status is in doubt? This page is pretty rigorously patrolled, with periodic purges of doubtful cases. As for the second part of your argument, please go up to a veteran of any war and tell them their service was not a defining trait. Bkatcher (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Something being important does not make it notable. Unless you can show reliable sources which depict this intersection ("WWII veterans" a "living") to actually be more than statistical trivia; then what you have is still just your unsupported opinion. Like unsourced statements in article; it is not convincing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two invalid arguments. Firstly, recently confirmed alive status is an inclusion criterion for this list. Secondly, the military service, i. e. veteran status, of the included persons in connection with their notability has to be backed up by sources in every single case. Due to that, it's proved that this article fulfills WP:LISTN. If your second argument was valid, the military service of Princess Elizabeth, e. g., wouldn't be covered by the media, because millions of British people served in the military during ww2, so nothing relevant about Princess Elizabeth having done the same. Renewal6 (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your rebuttals are text-book non sequiturs which entirely ignore my argument. The military service of the persons in question does not mean that a list of those of them that are alive is a notable encyclopedic topic. To show that the topic meets WP:LISTN, you need to find a source which specifically shows that "Veterans of WWII who are still alive" is a notable group; the same way, say, List of presidents of the United States is a list about a notable group (US presidents) discussed as such in sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - You didn't understand my argument. The articles themselves provide or should provide the sources that specifically show that "Veterans of WWII who are still alive" is a notable group. For example, the article about Lawrence Brooks (American_veteran) has four references, all of them verify the existence of such a group and the media coverage of them. Thus, it is proved that this list covers an encyclopedically notable topic and NOT an arbitrary cross-categorization like "List of veterans of World War II born on a Wednesday". Renewal6 (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not how list notability works. Individual entrants being notable does not mean that the list itself is notable. One could make a "List of piano sonatas in C major with the first movement in ternary time"; and have sourced articles about each individual piece listed there. That would still not make the list itself a notable list topic, since it would be a trivial cross categorisation, like here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        That's kind of a Reductio ad absurdum argument. We have articles such as List of presidents of the United States who owned slaves or list of television performers who died during production. Living notable World War II veterans is hardly that ridiculously specific. Bkatcher (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Other similarly ill-thought-out subjects existing is basically a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument (the second one of those almost certainly warrants a deletion, the first one maybe not because it's possible there'll be something about that). Unless you can show that this list subject meets LISTN (by showing actual sources which cover this, not ones which maybe trivially mention "X is the oldest" without giving any further coverage), then it is just as trivial as any other cross-categorisation one could think of. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The first is certainly notable, e.g. [20][21][22]. If someone can produce sources like these for this list I'll happily support keeping it. pburka (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is outrageous, Ive been crossreferencing this page for years! (As have many others, I just no longer have a wikipedia account these days as I've retired) Why was it deleted? It should of been a strong keep, as per prior conversations regarding this and these conversations, from memory - date back years. 86.144.76.56 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.101.106 (talk) [reply]

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

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

The result was delete.

The parallel discussions of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable surviving veterans of World War II (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood concern similar articles and cover essentially the same ground, so in closing this discussion I have taken into account all three discussions, as well as previous AfDs.

The count of !votes has been rendered useless by, if not exactly canvassing, an influx of a large number of editors who are clearly not very familiar with either our inclusion guidelines or the deletion policy. However, while the delete side generally put forth a consistent and policy-based argument---that a list that by definition will be empty in X years cannot be encyclopaedic---the case for keeping the articles is significantly undermined by a reliance on assertions that the topic is interesting, harmless, or some other argument conventionally considered invalid at AfD.

With a few exceptions, those in favour of keep failed to either refute the argument for deletion, or put forward their own policy-based reason for keeping the article. On that basis, I see a clear consensus to delete all three lists. – Joe (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood

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

Notability is not temporary. A list of living former US presidents will be notable as long as the United States of America still exists, but once every actor from this era dies this article will be pointless. This list is also arbitrarily defined (when was the “Golden Age” beyond “before the Studio System fell”?) and most of the younger actors on this list are barely relevant to the era since they just debuted during the tail end of it at a young age. Dronebogus (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is WP:INTERESTING, but it fails WP:LISTCRIT, WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:BLP.

The criteria for inclusion are an unencyclopedic cross-categorization: actors who worked during an ill-defined period who are also long-lived (although the youngest is only 65). It also favors child actors, arguably an implicit third cross-categorization. These cross-categorizations are not defining characteristics.
The criteria for inclusion are ambiguous. "Golden Age" isn't well-defined, as shown by this self-referential sentence: "Due to disagreement amongst editors regarding the time period of the Golden Age of Hollywood, the 302 living actors who made their credited debut after 1949 and before 1960 are listed in this section." (Ron Howard was a Golden Age actor??)
There's no evidence that this list is treated as a group by reliable sources. Of course some magazine or newspaper will periodically do a "where are they now" feature on some subset of the actors, but they're writing about a more specific subset and they're writing at a specific time. Reliable sources are not actively tracking this group of people.
Most (or perhaps all) of the entries are unverifiable. How do we know Anne Vernon (b. 1924) is alive in 2021? She hasn't had a credited role since 1972 and I don't see any recent news coverage. Our claim that she's living is based, as far as I can tell, on the absence of a published obituary. Claiming she's alive in 2021 with no supporting source is original research.
The list likely presents incorrect information about recently deceased people, a BLP violation. While it's one thing for a biography article to omit the person's death for a while, it's quite another for us to positively assert that a person is alive. This list of more than 400 sometimes obscure figures requires constant maintenance and cannot possibly be reliable. Betty Lou Holland, for example, remained a "living actor" for 7 months after her death. (Some of the listed actors don't even have their own Wikipedia pages!)
The topic is of only temporary interest. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT make it clear that a topic must have enduring significance to be included. I presume nobody would argue in favor of a list of living English Renaissance theatre actors or a list of living MCU actors. One is TOOLATE and the other TOOSOON. This list is only interesting for a few decades: admittedly much longer than the kind of flash-in-the-pan topics we usually think of, but it's still ephemeral and lacks enduring notability.
The list will eventually become empty and be deleted. This is evidence that it will be non-notable in the future. WP:NOTTEMPORARY tells us that notability is permanent, so I infer that the list must not be notable today, either.

pburka (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe find a better comparison argument than list of living former US presidents. I think the maximum number of that is four, which is right now. But along those lines, any such list of living individuals for any demographic, is a dwindling list. — Maile (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, my point was that a list of living former presidents would *not* be a dwindling list since there would regularly be new additions, therefore it will be notable into the foreseeable future. There will never be new golden age Hollywood stars since that era ended long ago, so the list will not be notable in the foreseeable future. Dronebogus (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The bulk of these were, logically, child actors from that period who merely share longevity in common now. But that's not a defining characteristic and there's little indication that them being alive still is a notable intersection or specific group. While a List of Golden Age of Hollywood actors may be a reasonable list – though its length may be unwieldy and hard to limit to those subjectively most famous during that period – the cross-categorization of that with those who were young enough to still be alive today and still in fact are isn't encyclopedic. A "living" list for other eras or other broad occupations wouldn't make sense either (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living silent film actors). Reywas92^Talk 00:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of video games notable for negative reception is an actual list. Honestly your a bit short-sighted there are tons of list on Wikipedia that probably should be deleted for your exact reasoning but you seem to have some kind of agenda with list dealing with surviving of a certain area, oldest living, etc. They are still relevant as long as you can have current content. --Tommieboi (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop copypasting a bad “whatabout” argument that doesn’t even correctly interpret my argument for deletion. The list you cite is notable because there will always be badly reviewed games and those reviews don’t predictably cease to exist like humans do. When you say “notable for being a member of finite group living today” you’re really saying “member of finite group notable for being alive in 2021” which is obviously not a claim to notability. Dronebogus (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a fun article that doesn't hurt anyone. Bkatcher (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument. And saying “it doesn’t hurt anyone” isn’t true either since it still takes up room and is potentially giving out false info about living or recently dead people for no good reason. Dronebogus (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic and useful resource.† Encyclopædius 08:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the opposite of encyclopedic. And who would seriously find this useful, and why? Dronebogus (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Golden Age of Hollywood is considered to have continued into the 1960s, and this article's cutoff of 1959 is entirely arbitrary, as noted on the talk page. This could conceivably be thousands of individuals longer when that is included. List of people and films from Classical Hollywood cinema is far too long to be useful but lists movies up to 1969. I'm not sure about other, better pages about film history highlighting the stars, but with this list having quite a few with only minor roles and and those who have predictably passed away, this isn't it. Reywas92^Talk 14:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Those !voting "keep", do we have any sources discussing this list as a collective? BilledMammal (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTEMPORARY and fails WP:NLIST. This list also has many WP:V issues as well as a hint of WP:LISTCRUFT. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:HTRIVIA-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It certainly falls under the category of encyclopedic.Radiohist (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I’d say it more likely fails the category definition of “encyclopedic” as it’s useless arbitrarily defined trivia. Dronebogus (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, you could say articles and lists about reality shows are useless arbitrarily defined trivia. You could say that about a lot of things. Whether something is trivia or not is subjective.Radiohist (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, but what’s more-or-less not subjective is that this list is unlikely to be ever be defined in an agreed-upon manner, extremely difficult to maintain and verify properly, and ultimately pointless as the topic will not even exist in the future. And yes, some people have argued “then why delete it now?” about the last point, but my counter-argument is “then why NOT delete it now if it will eventually get deleted anyway?”Dronebogus (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Only a person who doesn't have a good argument and knows he is probably worong answers qurstions with Why not do...Radiohist (talk) 05:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that, other than it’s meant to be insulting to me somehow. And perhaps consider checking your spelling before you post. Dronebogus (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I challenge Dronebogus not to have to have the last word and just let people vote. Bkatcher (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Like I said, it’s a debate, not a popularity contest. I have a right to dispute your arguments just as you have a right to dispute mine. Or at least tell people that their spelling is wrong and I couldn’t understand what they were trying to say. Dronebogus (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A google search shows there are sources which discus the topic of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood, which indicates they are notable as a group. Also in examples such as the NY Times obit for [[23]] Olivia de Havilland it says in the lead paragraph "She was 104 and one of the last surviving stars of Hollywood’s fabled Golden Age", indicating these people are notable not just for being famous actors, but specifically for being long living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood. I believe this article passes GNG, and therefore should not be deleted. Issues of article quality are a matter of cleanup, and AFD is not cleanup. Rhino131 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol either the NYT is wrong or this article is. We don't have a good definition of the Golden Age but if we want to use this mere passing, vague statement, this page needs a narrower time span... She's notable for her acting, not for being long lived still, even if that's a true fact about her (that's the only line in the obit that would be any different had she died earlier). Reywas92^Talk 14:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It certainly doesn't further discussion to go "lol". It only serves to increase hostility in this discussion as it can be seen as you behaving in a very condescending way towards the other participants.Radiohist (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be a more compelling argument if Olivia de Havilland were on this list, but of course she's not because she's dead. As time progresses this list will dwindle to increasingly obscure actors with increasingly tenuous links to the inconsistently-defined "Golden Age". The Times obituary might support a case for a List of last surviving stars of the Golden Age of Hollywood page, which could include people like de Havilland who was described as "one of the last surviving stars of Hollywood’s fabled Golden Age" in a reliable source. But that's a different list than this one. pburka (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable topic. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well no based on the fact that me and numerous other editors both disagree with you, plus the lack of significant coverage of this topic found thus far, I’d say it’s not obvious. Dronebogus (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I and numerous other editors agree with Joe. You know, you don't have to argue with every single 'keep' vote. Bkatcher (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, and as far as the nonsense that it will have to be deleted once they're all dead, see List of surviving veterans of World War I. Upon the 2012 death of Florence Green, the list was redirected to a more appropriate list, while preserving the long and interesting history of the original page. I see no reason why a similar solution wouldn't work in this case. I'll add that I agree that the list should be narrowed, and the inclusion of Ron Howard, et al., is ridiculous, but content disputes are not dealt with by deleting the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For the reasons already stated above. When the day comes that all people associated with the "Golden Age of Hollywood" are gone, I don't see why the page can't be renamed to something more appropriate and have the content adjusted for the name change. The list has issues that need to resolved, such as further discussion on narrowing down which names should be mentioned (as mentioned above, Ron Howard and so on), but that can be discussed in the talk page. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is a topic discussed by many reliable sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And where are these sources…? Dronebogus (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Rhino131 and Tommieboi. 172.58.110.212 (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the arguments already named. --Clibenfoart (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think the page should stay it's gonna be many many many many decades before the last one eventually dies and by then, as someone else said the article could be renamed to something else.--ThatBaileyLad (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article List of people and films from Classical Hollywood cinema was deleted with the consensus that the criteria were too broad and lacked a widely agreed-upon definition. That would appear to set a precedent for deleting this article for similar reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only reasonable source I could find that discusses this list is this, which on it's own does not satisfy WP:NLIST. Then there's the obvious WP:V issue; just because you can't find any reports to say somebody has died, doesn't mean they're still alive. This list is definitively stating that every person listed is living, which is completely unverifiable, and subsequently strips the list of any encyclopaedic value. I'm also in agreement with the sentiment that any perceived notability this list has will die out with it's last member, meaning that, by definition, it's notability is only temporary. – ².O.^Boxing 13:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How long do these discussions usually go on? Bkatcher (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usually a week, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A fascinating resource. Half our sports and politics lists are arbitarily defined lists as well and much loved. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples please. And also how many times must I say “people like it” and “it’s interesting” aren’t valid AfD arguments? Dronebogus (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dronebogus Look at the amount of people whose time has been thoroughly wasted by you. It has been 12 days and you have not presented one objective reason to delete this page. It is time to close this discussion.Radiohist (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I would say you haven’t. You seem to have a rather pugnacious and belittling attitude towards me which would suggest you’re looking for a personal victory in a fight rather than a productive consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - All of your statements have been borderline subjective and in the realm of "Why not delete it?". Why not do something is not a valid argument. So far you have been condescending towards every person who has expressed a different opinion. The fact that you have been asked on your talk page to refrain from hastily starting deletion discussions proves this page shouldn't be deleted. The majority of the people agree that there is no reason to delete the page, so I suggest we end this discussion.Radiohist (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, my main arguments were “notability isn’t finite, so this finite subject isn’t notable” and “the subject has no agreed-upon criteria for inclusion, making the list WP:INDISCRIMINATE”. I also agree with the argument that there simply aren’t enough sources discussing this as an actual group. And I have no idea which deletion incidents your referring to specifically, but it doesn’t “prove” anything since I’ve started countless others that were deleted (and plenty of others which weren’t) without fanfare, and in any case it has nothing to do with the issue at hand and is simply an ad hominem attack. Dronebogus (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These discussions usually go on for a week, but this has gone on for nearly two. Who makes the final decision here? Bkatcher (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An admin will make a decision. I imagine this one will be complicated because the analysis requires more than counting votes. That editor will need to evaluate the arguments to determine if they're policy- and guideline-based, and then decide on the strength of those whether the page should be kept or deleted. pburka (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pburka; as the usual example of trivial intersection of "characteristic x" and "living people" (with the additional implication of WP:NOTTEMPORARY); with no sources provided to actually back up LISTN (a trivial mention in an NYT obit. is not "significant coverage of the topic"; the same way a trivial mention of anything is not; and given the fact that most of the keeps are just a lesson in "how many different ways can WP:ITSINTERESTING be ignored". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11th Ward, Chicago

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

WP:NGEO doesn't directly address electoral districts, but I contend that municipal wards (even for large cities like Chicago) are not inherently notable unless they independently pass the WP:GNG. Edge3 (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Edge3 (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would recommend this be a batch nomination with the other wards at Category:City of Chicago Wards. Curbon7 (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7: Done. Thanks! Edge3 (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Weak keep unless there's some other guideline or consensus about wards I think they do fall under legally recognized places, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 10#Proposed deletion of all articles on local government subdivisions wards, divisions etc.. Wards tend to have more artificial boundaries than municipalities or even district though and there tends to be less coverage on them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: Thanks for your input. Just FYI, I've changed this to a batch nomination as per Curbon7's suggestion above. Edge3 (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the same points probably apply to all 3 (out of 50) of them we have articles for but 4th Ward, Chicago does include more content and sources than this one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, I started the article in 2015, and yesterday after I got an email saying it was up for deletion I did some googling about the ward and OH WOW what a corrupt haven of politically-connected criminal endeavor! Local news seems to mention it regularly! It just so happens to be the center of the Daley Machine. Aside from that, I would argue that local wards within cities are notable, each has unique histories, demographics and characteristics, this particular one has been the center of political power in Chicago for decades. I haven't had time to congeal everything I googled to expand the current article yet but here's a link dump anyone can use to improve the article (hysterically there's even a has-your-alderman-been-indicted website in an article that specifically mentions the 11th ward):
https://wgntv.com/news/chicagocrime/has-your-alderman-been-indicted-this-website-answers-that-for-you/
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel-Bliss-3/publication/253342850_The_New_Daley_Machine_1989-2004_by/links/562a743608ae04c2aeb1a7c9/The-New-Daley-Machine-1989-2004-by.pdf
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/criminal-justice/ct-alderman-patrick-daley-thompson-federal-probe-20210429-j5euehymabc7djhc4xhm2fdrau-story.html
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-politics/patrick-thompson-daley-city-council-11th-ward/1985149/?amp
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150407/bridgeport/patrick-daley-thompson-wins-11th-ward-election.amp/
https://news.wttw.com/2015/01/20/race-representing-11th-ward
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-politics/get-to-know-your-ward-11th-ward/113666/
https://www.google.com/books/edition/American_Pharaoh/nGem2g467GAC?hl=en&gbpv=1

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep WP:GEOLAND does not specifically mention political districts like this, but does state Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. I suppose a ward is a legally recognized settlement that is different than a settlement without legal recognition such as most neighborhoods, which require GNG standards. It's best to follow guideline on close calls like this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFood.eu

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

2011 NC at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikifood that probably should have been a soft deletion as even the merge vote didn't seem to believe there was sourcing. Per its organizer, it won a couple of awards, but there's no indication these are notable, and there's no English or German sourcing to meet GNG. German article doesn't h ave anything of help as it & the Englist have the same sourcing. No article for Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology and no indication this was anything more than one of their projects so might be UNDUE there. Star Mississippi 00:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Poorly-referenced article for non-notable website. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – my searches aren't finding any coverage that would satisfy WP:NWEB/the GNG. (GScholar gets a few hits, but these are mostly primary-source descriptions of various studies involving the site.) And contra the !vote in the previous AfD, there seems to be no possible target for merging (or redirecting). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:18, 7 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 12:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Selected Reserve Force Medal

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

Article with unclear notability that hasn't been substantially updated in 15 years. Andrew³²⁷ 13:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a reference, but it appears that the Maryland Selected Reserve Force Medal is a proposed medal that was never officially authorized. Someone may want to compare the Maryland listings in Category:Awards and decorations of the United States National Guard with the official list of Maryland National Guard decorations at https://cupdf.com/document/maryland-military-department-regulation-672-1-awards-and-decorations.html. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never issued, and the proposal to issue it was not notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd enthusiastically entertain a discussion about notability if this commendation had been issued, or if there had been significant debate about the proposal to do so, or ultimate decision to not do so. But I couldn't find anything along those lines. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unissued non-notable medal that the awardee had to purchase? Nah. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is yet to meet notability standards. Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. A. Baracus

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

Most of the sources on google search only shows and talks about Mr. T and not the character, fails notability. DarwinClean (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above account, DarwinClean, has requested an indefinite block after I politely questioned his immediate AfD and content trimming participation as characteristic of an older account. To the best of my knowledge, no misconduct was identified nor Checkuser tool run, but closing admins may want to take this unusual turn of events under advisement. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's lots of coverage of the character. Just explaining what B.A. stands for is alone worth a section and so it's good that the article does this. But it still needs expansion as at least one source explains that "it was actually Bad Ass"! As for Mr T, he's notable too but note that the character has been played by other actors such as Quinton Jackson too and then there are a variety of representations in other media too. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a lot out there, and I am leaning towards keep. This is two page long but half-serious: [24]. And [25] here is a RS for what BA stands for, and a bit different from what Andrew found above :P I haven't noticed any great SIGCOV but this needs a proper BEFORE and given the dramu with the blocked nom, I doubt the nom will volunteer to do it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The character's enduring notability is established with two different actors portraying the character 25 years apart. Banana Republic (talk) 12:33, 7 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.

Withdrawn. DarwinClean (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kryptonian

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

It doesn't meet current standards in terms of article quality, fails notability. DarwinClean (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current state of the article is not that bad and, in any case, our policy WP:IMPERFECT states clearly that "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. ... Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." while our policy WP:ATD states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." As for notability, this is huge. Here's an entire book of of 235 pages about the topic, for example. And there are numerous sources detailing that Superman was not alone -- see CBR, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Andrew has already stated, that the current status is less-than-perfect is no reason for deletion, if it can be improved. I wonder, was there a proper WP:BEFORE search done do ascertain the serious claim that this topic fails notability? WP:BEFORE also asks to put up tags in case of percieved issues so that an editor "may act to remedy it", not as to immediately nominate for deletion! Anyway, the suggested search from Google Scholar alone leads to a large number of hits. I would be surprised if none of those would have content contributing to notability. E.g. Superman and Philosophy has a number of distributed pieces of analysis about Kryptonian psychology, relationship to humanity, and physiology. And speaking about physiology, there is also this paper which don't quite know what to make of it :-). Daranios (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew. The article has potential notoriety. It is not uncommon to find a book or website talking about the Kryptonians, as [26]. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 17:57, 6 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. Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collin Leijenaar

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

Played with some notable people, but doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG himself. Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Completely junk. I can't see how he can be notable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creep^Talk 15:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many interviews and reviews about his work as a musician. Within the progressive rock world he is a notable drummer and producer. This should not be deleted, but amended so article meets guidelines! User:Novaeprod

Delete: Subject fails both WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I did find one quality RS in google books in English. Given his lengthy career with multiple notable European bands, it is likely that foreign language references exist (possibly online or behind a paywall in press or offline). However, the Dutch wiki article is mostly sourced to interviews and dead links, and there's really nothing there that we can use towards GNG or MUSICBIO. I would suggest a redirect, but with this musician being associated with multiple groups an obvious redirect isn't possible. I'm really not confident that quality sources aren't out there given that he has toured to multiple European nations where press is written in many different languages; hence the weak delete.4meter4 (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sirwan Kakai

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MMANOT criteria for only having 2 fights in top tier promotions. Also fails WP:GNG as fights are only routine report. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 10:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fight results, signing reports, and promotional coverage do not meet the GNG. He also fails to meet the notability standards for MMA fighters.Sandals1 (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails to meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters at WP:NMMA. The coverage appears to be routine sports reporting. There's nothing to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 00:07, 12 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. ✗plicit 12:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shivranjani Rajye

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

Descendant of a politician. Fails WP:GNG Not enough WP:SIGCOV. Case of WP:BIOFAMILY defcon5 (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. The coverage is adequate to pass WP:GNG, especially with articles from two Canadian newspaper. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG seems to be met with the sources already in the article (significant coverage in the Toronto Star, the Financial Post, Mint, and Vogue India). A quick search also reveals other coverage that could be used for sources, including The Times and the Smithsonian. NHCLS (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage both included in the article and per search. WP:GNG is met. 117.18.230.34 (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject meets criteria #5 at WP:NBAND (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meliah Rage

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The closest thing to Meliah Rage being "notable" is the fact Sully Erna was in the band at one point before he started Godsmack. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a solid reason to keep the band's article because notability is not inherited. The band needs evidence of notable achievements after the short-term early membership of one person who later became notable elsewhere. Also note that Meliah Rage is only listed at Erna's article very briefly with no discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete - Despite 30+ years and 12 albums, this band just hasn't been noticed by significant and reliable media except for some partial coverage at AllMusic. They have a robust biography there ([27]) but it ends abruptly in 2004, and some of their albums have staff-written reviews there, but not all of them. That may be enough for some voters, but with bigger-picture thinking there is very little else to work with. Otherwise they only appear in typical genre directories and I am unable to find any additional reviews of their albums outside of blogs and fanzines. Also, as commented above they are mentioned occasionally for one early member who became notable later, but that does not help this band's notability. I wish there was more to go on here, but I can't find it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They had some publicity in at least early 90's, when two of their their music videos played by MTV Headbangers Ball. 162.231.193.43 (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See criterion #1 at WP:NBAND. Trivial listings don't qualify. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MBAND: "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

...11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." MTV is obviously "a major music television network". -GorgonaJS (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBAND#5, two major label albums (Epic Records=Sony). In addition, on newspapers.com I found the following:

A profile in The Boston Globe 17 Dec 1988
Reviews of "KtS" in:

The Pittsburgh Press 23 Mar 1989
The Morning Call 13 May 1989
LA Weekly 13 Apr 1989

Lengthy concert review in Albuquerque Journal 29 Mar 1989

Geschichte (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NBAND#5 and WP:SIGCOV per sources provided above. I also found more sources which I listed below. 4meter4 (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elianne Halbersberg (May 6, 1989). "Heavy Metal & Hard Rock '89: Buzz Bands: Who Will Bust Through in '89-'90?". Billboard. 101 (18): H6, H12.
Elianne Halbersberg (May 6, 1989). "HEAVY METAL & HARD ROCK '89: THE MAJORS: Labels Deploy Raw-Metal Detectors to Seek and Sign More Men (and Women) of Steel". Billboard. 101 (18): H3, H23, H24, H26.
Irv Lichtman, ed. (March 4, 1989). "INSIDE TRACK". Billboard. 101 (9): 94.
"ALBUM RELEASES; Meliah Rage". Billboard. 100 (51): 35. December 17, 1988.
Morse, Steve (30 June 1988). "Heavy metal hacks way up charts". Chicago Tribune. p. E14.
GARZA, JANISS (20 March 1989). "Pop Capsules: A Metal Church for Exclusive Worshiping". Los Angeles Times. p. E4.
Ham, Chris (3 August 1990). "Epic releases U.S.-Soviet songwriting collaboration: New albums". Chicago Tribune. p. S.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Following the work by User:Possibly and others seems it's clear there is no longer a consensus to delete and a shift in those proposing deletion that the article does now achieve some degree of tenuous notability under WP:ARTIST. Seddon ^talk 22:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patricio Moreno Toro

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

I created this article but another user removed most of its sources. now, I'm not sure about the notability of subject. Please check it out.Mahdiar86 (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The sole source is a press release listing in ARTWEEK, it does not constitute SIGCOV in a RS. A Google search on the artist turned up nothing. I had a look at the article in Spanish Wikipedia, which is highly sourced, but all of the linked sources were unverifiable, or 404, or did not mention him. Nevertheless this article on en-WP does not seem to meet notability criteria, but I'm holding off on !voting as it's unclear to me whether the nominator (a new editor) realized they opened an AfD on their own creation, or if they were simply seeking feedback from other editors about the article. Netherzone (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a list of all the sources ever used in the article, excluding searches and other wikipedia articles:
- http://patriciomorenotoro.com
- http://www.artnet.com/artists/patricio-moreno-toro/
- http://www.banderasnews.com/1303/art-ambos-galeria-march22-art-opening.htm
- https://decanteddesign.com/2017/04/21/painter-patricio-moreno-toro-chile-has-had-a-life-fully-lived-travelled-of-striving-artistic-progression-see-blogroll-for-a-link/
- https://macay.org/prensa/art%C3%ADculo/893/patricio-toro-reflexiona-en-su-obra-en-torno-a-las-migraciones-forzadas
- https://oncubanews.com/en/styles-trends/technologies-of-communication-and-media/weekly-billboard-four-cubans-films-in-new-york/
- https://rehistoricizing.org/patricio-toro-moreno/
- https://www.artandbeyondpublications.com/press-release
- https://www.artland.com/artists/patricio-moreno-toro
- https://www.artprice.com/artist/564818/patricio-moreno-toro
- https://www.artweek.com/events/united-states/art-exhibition/vor%C3%A1gines-new-works-international-artist-patricio-moreno-toro-v#
- https://www.mnuchingallery.com/artists/mary-lovelace-o-neal Vexations (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Vexations, it makes sense these sources were removed as they are primary, blogs, user-submitted or press release "news". The only one that might be useful to the article is the one from the Museum in the Yucatan (macay.org) that proves he has a show there, but that does not contribute to notability. Netherzone (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotional. Kuatrero (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have made an effort to locate independent, reliable sources and found no significant coverage that could be used to sustain an article. Vexations (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Update: Weak keep. I still have some reservations about what we can reliably say about the subject, and an institution like the Museo de Arte Contemporáneo Ateneo de Yucatán (MACAY) is really small, and I'm not 100% sure that it's all that notable, but well done finding all that. Vexations (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep . If someone can find a reliable references his work is really being in the permanent collections of Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes, Santiago, Chile; Museum of Modern Art, Managua, Nicaragua; Museo Nacional de Arte Contemporary y Diseño, San Jose, Costa Rica; Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC, USA; Museo Nacional de Belles Artes, Havana, Cuba as claimed he easily passed WP:ARTIST. But personally I could not find any support for those claims. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Delete~~ - ~~I tried verifying the collections, and was unsuccessful. Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST at this time.~~ I did however find that he was in two group shows at the Museo de Arte y Diseno Contemporaneo in San Jose, Costa Rica, but two group shows is definitely not enough to pass notability criteria. What can sometimes be problematic, is that not all museums have digitized all of the works held in their collections; some museums have not digitized their collections at all. Nevertheless, there needs to be some sort of proof that the artist's work is in notable collections to pass #4 of WP:ARTIST. If that is found I'd be willing to change my !vote. Mahdiar86, you created the article and also nominated it for deletion, is it possible for you to shed some light on where you found the information? That might help. Netherzone (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Passes WP:NARTIST, criteria 4. Changing my !vote to K**p now that three verified collections have been found. Great detective work, Possibly and others! Netherzone (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NARTIST. There is no substantiation that proves claims of being a permanent exhibit. Ifnord (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I put a note in at Possibly's talk page to do a museum archive search to see if we can verify that his work is indeed included in one of those major collections which would establish notability per criteria #4 of NARTIST. Possibly is an expert at hunting down that kind of material in RS, and we should wait until he gets back to us before we close this AFD.4meter4 (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was pinged here and had a look around for museum collections. I got the sense that there may be coverage out there, but that it is in Spanish and it is probably under the name Patrico Toro.

I verified the De Young Museum collection (see here).
he has personal papers in the Smithsonian Archive of American Arts: link.
He was in four shows at the Costa Rican Museum of contemporary art and design. His CV says he is in the collection, but no proof of that found.
Mentioned here as part of a Museum of Finer Arts Houston show.

Artists love to inflate their CVs with claimed accomplishments. Some collections I checked did not verify. However, in this case, more often than not, a little scraping below the surface turned up some connection to the museum in question, as above. Haven't looked at the article, so no comment beyond that. It would take more time than I have tio figure this one out, but it seems like it might be heading in the direction of being kept. --- Possibly ☎ 18:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's add the City of Berkeley to the collections list. There is also an interview at the Museum of the Yucatan. --- Possibly ☎

There is a Spanish sculptor named Jose Manuel Patricio Toro who is not the same guy. --- Possibly ☎ 19:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a third collection, the Museo de Arte Contemporáneo de Ciudad Acuña, which has no wiki page but looks legit. That makes two museums and a city with his work in permanent collections. The article needs work, but keep.

I'm not sure some of these are actually Patricio Moreno Toro. His name in short would be Patricio Moreno, not Patricio Toro. Especially that Yucatán source, isn't likely to be him (Spanish language sources will never mention him as Patricio Toro; I would expect an English language source to incorrectly name him Patricio Toro though, but I am not convinced it's the case here). BTW, the Smithsonian reference is out of question. --Bedivere (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere: I saw biographies listing San Francisco, Cancun and Chile as places of residence, so they all make sense. The De Young and Berkeley collections are him without a doubt; he lived in SF. The Smithsonian AAA collection makes sense, it is an exact match for his name in the article. Here is an article in "Diario de Yucatan" that shows him, with pictures, calling him Patricio Moreno Toro, so the Yucatan link makes sense, unless there are two Patricio Toro artists in the Yucatan. If there are other links you find dubious, let me know and I will check them. I think it is pretty routine for artists to use a nom de plume/stage name, just ask Robert Allen Zimmerman, Reginald Kenneth Dwight or Declan Patrick MacManus. --- Possibly ☎ 01:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm conscious of the use of pen names. However, I incorrectly thought you performed the search ignoring that Moreno was his paternal surname (and so, the primary one). I have just checked the Spanish-language article and it states he also uses the "Patricio Toro" name. So, I no longer put these references in question. I still think the article is written in a promotional, non neutral way and, if kept, work should be done on it. --Bedivere (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets criteria 4 of WP:NARTIST per evidence found by Possibly.4meter4 (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of independent and reliable references in English and Spanish. Also his biography in Spanish Wikipedia is under a deletion tag.Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - looks like this may be another collection: Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes de Chile [28] Netherzone (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: nice work finding that. Here is the live version. That makes three collections, so it seems like a clear k*eep now. --- Possibly ☎ 19:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment Thanks for all participated users in discussion. After concluding, I'll move article to draft space for improving and working on it and finding more sources about subject to mention all his exhibitions.Mahdiar86 (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to draftify. The subject is notable. Improvements can be made in main space.4meter4 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahdiar86:, an administrator or uninvolved person will close the discussion, so please don't move anything. --- Possibly ☎ 04:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Fomalhaut#Etymology and cultural significance. Clear consensus that this article shouldn't remain. What content gets selectively merged is up to editorial discretion - it can be as much or as little as desired. Daniel (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fomalhaut in fiction

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

While some locations and concepts in fiction can be rescued (see Earth in science fiction), we have quite a few left over fancrufty lists left (see Template:Astronomical locations in fiction), and here's one of the worst. While this cites a few sources, as usual, 99% is actually unreferenced, and worse, the problem is that cited The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction mentions it just in passing. No source I see has even a paragraph dedicted to this star system. At best, this could be merged to the (very messy) Fomalhaut#Etymology_and_cultural_significance section (there is also the Stars_and_planetary_systems_in_fiction#Fomalhaut_(Alpha_Piscis_Austrini) which is a cool idea but realistically, a giant indiscriminate ORish list that we will need to deal with at some point...).

Works checked: Brave new words the Oxford dictionary of science fiction (mentioned in a single quote), Encyclopedia Of Science Fiction (Library Movements) by Don DAmmassa (not mentioned), The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (not mentioned), The New encyclopedia of science fiction by Gunn, Jame (not mentioned), The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (mentioned in five articles in passing: [29]) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC) PS. I also checked the The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy which does not appear to mention the subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stars_and_planetary_systems_in_fiction, for now, those entries about works which have articles and where Fomalhaut has a major role in the plot. From the looks of it, most of the current entries do not. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't seem difficult to find detailed sources such as A Research on Multiple Implications of Fomalhaut's Image in Feng Ge's Cang Hai. And the worst case would be merger to Fomalhaut#Etymology_and_cultural_significance which already contains similar content. The suggested Stars and planetary systems in fiction does not seem so sensible because the number of these is literally astronomical. Huge compendia and lists are unwieldy and unhelpful. It's better to have short, succinct articles with precise titles as these are easier to find and read on the mobile devices which our readership mostly prefers. Small Is Beautiful. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's pretty difficult, if the best source you can find is a Chinese article of dubious reliability. Who is Feng Ge and what is his Cang Hai? Were you able to access the source to even confirm the Fomalhaut discussed in it is the star and not something else? The abstract doesn't suggest we are talking about a star, or fiction (just mentions "Fomalhaut's animal image" - it could well be some anthropological research about tribal/religious believes related to this star, which is irrelevant to the discussed article). The responsibility is on you to show us that this source is relevant here, all we have is a WP:GOOGLETEST result of "1" that may not even be relevant to this topic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Update: As far as I can tell with Google Translate, this is indeed an error; the topic of an animal - cat named "Beiluo Shimen" whose name was somehow (machine?) translated into Fomalhaut. That's what we get when people waste other's time with random google results of texts they don't even bother to read themselves. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS. A Chinese student of mine confirmed that the this is about a cat whose name can be translated as Fomalhaut (although given the work doesn't seem to have an official translation, it's anyone's guess how the name would be rendered by a translator anyway - character names are often not translated, after all...), but other than the name there is no connection the star. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I agree that this is not the easiest article to provide detailed references for, it can be done, as the existing references show. I think we're better to draw this to the attention of the relevant Wikiproject, and let them improve the article over time. RomanSpa (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RomanSpa What existing references? They either fail WP:SIGCOV or are WP:PRIMARY. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some might not be able to be sourced but some should be able to be, and the parent article target is too large. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber What do you mean by "some"? Where is the policy justification for keeping this article in your sentence? I am missing it, somehow. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The policy-based opinion is that there are most likely sources - I am familiar with some of the items in the article and just because you can't find some sources on an entry-level compendium or two does not persuade me that they don't exist. Alot of popular culture items are poorly covered in accessible online sources. I'd also support a Merge to Fomalhaut#Etymology and cultural significance. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber The policy-based statement I am familiar is states that Wikipedia:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a good argument. If you see sources discussing this topic, please cite them. Please note that we are not saying the article is a hoax - I am familiar with some of the uncited claims myself. Yes, Fomalhaut does appear in text of some works. But no, that is not enough to make this article pass WP:GNG or the list there past WP:NLIST. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is an essay (please don't insert an essay as if it were a policy), which was mainly penned by someone with a higher bar for notability/inclusion than me. As I said, just because it isn't in a few entry-level/broad sources doesn't mean that none exist. Unfortunately my hands are full at the moment so I don't have time to drop tools and go looking. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying "there must be sources" is a good argument? Anyway, if you prefer, WP:V is pretty clear: "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources", and WP:GNG as well - in WP:SIGCOV (mentions in passing don't suffice) and WP:INDEPENDENT (neither do references to primary works). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or else merge into Stars and planetary systems in fiction. Bullet points that have a link to an existing article on the topic more or less imply notability for that statement. I'd say if a bullet doesn't have an article that establishes notability for that topic, then it needs a reference or should be removed. Praemonitus (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fomalhaut#Etymology and cultural significance - While a few (but not many) of the specific examples may have reliable sources discussing them, I can't find any sources discussing the overall concept in depth, and so far none of have been brought forward here. Concerns about the size of the target article after merger are invalid, because the vast majority of the content here would be inappropriate to merge - only the actual notable works in which the star or its system played a significant role should actually be retained. The multitude of examples where its simply a single, non-notable location in a work of fiction, or worse, the many "It was mentioned once in this book!" examples should be removed, regardless of this article's fate. Rorshacma (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reasonable grounds advanced for deletion. The fact that the subject is not covered in the nominator's favorite handful of reference works tells us virtually nothing about overall coverage of the subject. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Those are not my "favorite handful of reference works". Those are the primary reference works on this topic. Did I miss any? If so, please tell us what it is, and what it says about this topic, instead of making a variation of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES claim. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main article. The current article is the typical TVTropes nonsense. Independent notability of the topic has not been established. That these topics are hard to curate does not necessitate a split from the main article. If there is anything to be salvaged, a summary style prose section can be created. TTN (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fomalhaut. No significant coverage of the topic is currently represented on the article or has been raised in this discussion - many of the keep votes amount to WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. I don't think there's anything of substance to merge, as the article is largely unsourced pop culture trivia. Waxworker (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely fails WP:LISTN and is really just WP:LISTCRUFT. Willing to change my vote if someone can show me an RS treating this as a grouping but I can't find anything. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fomalhaut#Etymology and cultural significance As a WP:ATD, this does not seem like it merits a standalone article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Fomalhaut#Etymology and cultural significance. The keep arguments haven't demonstrated that reliable sources with significant coverage support a stand alone article. The merge argument to Fomalhaut#Etymology and cultural significance is far more convincing than those made for Stars and planetary systems in fiction.4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fomalhaut#Etymology and cultural significance - references do not indicate that a standalone article meets WP:NLIST. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Elvis Presley hit albums

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

Redundant list which should be covered on Elvis Presley albums discography Bluesatellite (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this seems to be WP:POV and WP:OR with a pinch of WP:FANCRUFT. No definition of what is a "hit" album. Per nom this is already covered by Elvis Presley albums discography. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Elvis's discography isn't so broad that it needs to be split, nor is the coverage so lacking that we should cover only a subset of his albums rather than the collection. In other words, this list makes no sense. BilledMammal (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This page is mostly redundant with Elvis Presley albums discography. Any information included on this page that might not be on the main album page can be added.MHS1976 (talk) 03:22PM, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any sourced content not in Elvis Presley albums discography to that list, no reason for a redundant list, no reason this should exist as a standalone list article. Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Redundant to main discography, but with confusing, subjective criteria. Sergecross73 msg me 21:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for this list at all, should already be sufficiently covered by Elvis Presley albums discography. Ajf773 (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The problem here is the meaning of the word "hit". Most of Elvis's (original) releases were hits, and categorizing some as different types of hits than others shows original research and fancruft. We already have everything we need at Elvis Presley albums discography. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the above editors that the major issue with this list is the word "hit" and how subjective that criteria is for different readers. I agree with Vladimir.copic that this has issues with WP:POV, WP:OR, and WP:FANCRUFT. Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 11 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. Notability concerns relating to WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV have not been adequately addressed in the discussion and the article remains an unreferenced BLP. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rashad Nasirov

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

The work of the deputy chairman of aztv in Azerbaijan does not make it encyclopedic, because in that television the vice-chairmen change every 4 or 5 years. Doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG. --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From his article: "On 7 November 2016, he was awarded with the honorary title of "Honored journalist" by the executive order of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, for his services in TV and radio sphere in Azerbaijan."GorgonaJS (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in a very bad condition, so it would be correct to delete it as it violates the style of the encyclopedia. --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a reason for deletion. See WP:PROBLEM and WP:BEFORE. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:SIGCOV. Essentially he is a government appointed journalist (no separation of government and media in Azerbaijan), and the same said government honored him with the title "honored journalist"; an act which could be seen as nepotism and puffery. Because the honor itself is not widely recognized and lacks independence I don't think there is a good argument here for notability. This is further evidenced by the fact that the subject lacks any significant independent coverage.4meter4 (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:11, 6 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C S Burrough

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG can't see any reliable coverage TheChronium 14:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, didn't see your names up here. New to process.

Per the note below, all newspaper references have been added via Newspapers.com. John Michael Vore is listed, separately as: John (Mike) Vore, Michael Vore, John Vore, J. Michael Vore, John (Michael Vore). Never lived in Kansas, never lived in Montana.

I believe the Author issues have been resolved by my not participating except for minor edits?

Informatics411 (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ref bombed promo complete with official portrait. I would more inclined to consider otherwise if the SMH ref was more than a capsule review. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable public figure with bestselling literary works, well written and sourced biography, well improved since first flagged for deletion. QLitBabel (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:06, 6 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. czar 06:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Rayford

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Another non-notable Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User (indefinitely blocked for COPYVIO). Sources are generally non reliable, passing mentions or generic Tuskegee Airmen filler. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here, just belonging to a notable unit/organisation does not confer notability on all its members, this is Easy Company all over again. Mztourist (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom.Intothat darkness 16:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, another waste of time deprod. Avilich (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply being a member of a well known military unit does not equal notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:08, 7 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. czar 06:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leon C. Roberts

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Another non-notable Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User (indefinitely blocked for COPYVIO). Sources are generally non reliable, passing mentions or generic Tuskegee Airmen filler. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here, just belonging to a notable unit/organisation does not confer notability on all its members, this is Easy Company all over again. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Intothat darkness 16:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, another waste of time deprod. Avilich (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply being a member of a well known military unit does not equal notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:08, 7 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. czar 06:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monash coal mine

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

Deprodded, but I concur with the PRODer (User:Calistemon; also ping User:JarrahTree and the deprodded, User:Andrew Davidson) that the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mining-related deletion discussions. JarrahTree 04:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per my original PROD, No indication of notability, no indication that this mine ever went into the operational stage. No such mine listed on the NSW Minerals Council Map of NSW Mines. No information on the mine on the stated owners, Yancoal, website. According to the Australian Government, it is under an exploration license only, no active mining. From this Singleton Argus article added as a source to the article by User:Eastmain, it appears even the exploration licence has expired. Additionally, the statement "one of the largest coal reserves in the world" (which was stated by User:Andrew Davidson as the reason for removing the PROD) is not mentioned in the associated reference at all and neither are the future production figures. Currently, there is no indication that this is a notable mining project at all, leave alone an active mine. Calistemon (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article correctly identifies the mine as a "a proposed coal mine". It has been a project (that is, a proposed mine) for a long time, and I think it is a notable project. Even if it is eventually abandoned for economic or environmental reasons, "once notable, always notable". I think thermal coal is a Bad Thing, but that isn't a factor in assessing notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain A, nobody has showed this was notable at any point in time. B, nobody is suggesting this should be deleted because 'coal is bad'. C, you failed to make any policy-based argument for keeping this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calistemon - and the fact there is nothing to indicate anything in https://trove.nla.gov.au/search?keyword.phrase=monash%20coal%20mine - a sure sign the original prod and this afd are indeed justified. There is simply not enough to justify even a 'proposed mine' article - it exists nowhere in space that would have carried WP:RS - the sources to 'carry' the article through to sustantiate an abandoned proposal do not exist. JarrahTree 14:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there doesn't appear to be significant coverage of this in any good sources for the moment Avilich (talk) 18:54, 6 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. czar 06:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embankment machine (The War of the Worlds)

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

Unreferenced article and even it's very name may be ORish. I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with an unhelpful rationale despite the fact that I asked in my prod for a proper rationale while deprodding. I am not sure if a redirect to Fighting machine (The War of the Worlds) makes sense but it can be considered. Please also see two other relevant AfDs next to this about nearly identical articles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handling machine (The War of the Worlds), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying machine (The War of the Worlds)). Ping User:Hog Farm who endorsed my prod. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Extremely minor plot element of The War of the Worlds, without a single source being used in the article. Redirecting to the main article on either The War of the Worlds or Martian (The War of the Worlds) would be inappropriate as they are not mentioned on either page, and merging would be inappropriate due to the lack of any sources and the very minor role they played in the book or any of its adaptations. Rorshacma (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TWotW - even if they are not mentioned, there is no harm in creating the redirect for future use. I would also suggest that Handling machine (The War of the Worlds) and Flying machine (The War of the Worlds) should be discussed. Fighting machine (The War of the Worlds) is probably fine. BilledMammal (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal They are discussed, see the links just above. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I must have missed that. BilledMammal (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- completely unsourced OR regarding a very minor element of a work of fiction. The title is not much use. This is clearly a hopeless case. At some point "because I'm allowed to" needs to stop being a reason to deprod, to stop this trollish waste of everyone's time. Reyk _YO! 10:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete topic fails WP:GNG. Don't recommend a redrect since titles with parenthetical qualifiers are inherently unlikely search terms. Avilich (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence that this fictional element has recieved sufficient coverage. Its name is also original research. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 08:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Performed WP:BEFORE on this when seconding the PROD. DEPROD failed to include any sort of actual sourcing or policy that supporting keeping this, which makes sense because there is none. Hog Farm _Talk 05:00, 10 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. czar 06:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flying machine (The War of the Worlds)

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

Unreferenced article and even it's very name may be ORish. I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with an unhelpful rationale despite the fact that I asked in my prod for a proper rationale while deprodding. I am not sure if a redirect to Fighting machine (The War of the Worlds) makes sense but it can be considered. Please also see two other relevant AfDs next to this about nearly identical articles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handling machine (The War of the Worlds), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embankment machine (The War of the Worlds)). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- a minor, hardly mentioned, plot element in this book. The article is virtually unsourced and overflowing with OR, and the title is not much use since parentheticals in a redirect title are seldom useful. Unclear rationale for deprod. Reyk _YO! 07:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find any reliable sources that have given this fictional machine significant coverage. The fact that it does not even have a proper name does not help its case. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 08:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 15:49, 7 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. czar 06:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Handling machine (The War of the Worlds)

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

Unreferenced article and even it's very name may be ORish. I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with an unhelpful rationale despite the fact that I asked in my prod for a proper rationale while deprodding. I am not sure if a redirect to Fighting machine (The War of the Worlds) makes sense but it can be considered. Please also see two other relevant AfDs next to this about nearly identical articles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying machine (The War of the Worlds), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embankment machine (The War of the Worlds)). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- a minor element of this work of fiction, and the article contains no sourcing to speak of. It seems to contain a lot of OR. The title is not much use as a redirect because parentheticals in redirect titles are seldom useful. Unclear rationale for deprod. Reyk _YO! 07:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find any evidence that the "handling machine" has received any substantial coverage. Furthermore, its name is original research. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 08:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemic Merit Model

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

Non-notable method from a non-notable article from an author without an article. SL93 (talk) 01:05, 6 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. czar 06:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delson Heleno

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

Fails WP:NMMA for only having 1 fight in a top tier promotion, TUF fights are exhibition bouts and aren't counted. Also fails WP:GNG as fights are routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters and lacks the significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:51, 13 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. czar 06:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse Goals

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

This is a web series distributed by Snapchat (although somewhat odd, the company isn't not mentioned anywhere in the article). The series is mentioned in a few reliable sources, but the mentions are not significant coverage. From what I can tell there's only one article from a RS that doesn't read like a press release and here, too, the mention of the show is not significant: 1. Delete or redirect to Snapchat. Citrivescence (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of coverage; oppose redirection because there is no mention of "Apocalypse Goals" in the Snapchat article. feminist (+) 02:57, 13 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 per the excellent sources provided by DanCherek; thank you. (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Waterless Sea

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

Apparently non-notable sequel. Article cites no sources, while a WP:BEFORE search turns up only blurbs. BilledMammal (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the book has been reviewed by critics in The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books [30], School Library Journal [31][32], Booklist [33], and Kliatt [34], among others. This meets WP:BOOKCRIT #1. DanCherek (talk) 05:01, 6 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.