Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 11 February 13 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Cabaret and Bar

[edit]
Palm Cabaret and Bar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like an advertisement, and is not notable Uwsi (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – doesn't read like an advertisement (and if it did, deletion is not cleanup), and the sources, e.g. Frommer's, local news, other books/magazines, seem likely to show notability. If the nominator or someone else would like to provide some explanation of why the sources are inadequate (more than just "and is not notable"), I'd be glad to reconsider, but they seem to be more-or-less reliable and to discuss the establishment in-depth. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2022 (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 00:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SpareBank 1 SR-Bank

[edit]
SpareBank 1 SR-Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article reads like an obvious advertisement Uwsi (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 12 February 2022 (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 23:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Center for a Secure Free Society

[edit]
Center for a Secure Free Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. All refs are own refs. WP:BEFORE reveals social media links but nothing better. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   20:53, 12 February 2022 (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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decreasing graduation completion rates in the United States

[edit]
Decreasing graduation completion rates in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created in 2011 by a student as part of a college course, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Courses/Spring 2011/Advanced Seminar in Political Communication (Robert Mann). The article contradicts itself on basic items like whether graduation completion rates in the US have in fact been decreasing. An older and better article covering the same topic, Educational attainment in the United States, exists, so I see no reason to keep this one. Perhaps a small amount of the content could be merged there. Apocheir (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2022 (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. Closing a few hours early per WP:SNOW. Hog Farm Talk 19:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Index of Suriname-related articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This type of list can be considered depecrated, per this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this AFD. The community does not need an index to get "access" to Surinamese topics. Geschichte (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2022 (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 /trainwreck. The first six as a batch were probably fine, but further inclusion of 12 articles was not going to come to a consensus with NSPORTS concurrently being in the middle of a contentious debate. I would suggest rather than 19 separate AfDs, which no one wants, that the creator, nominator and interested parties see if draftification might be an amenable solution until such point as suitable sourcing can be identified. Star Mississippi 02:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poul Nielsen (footballer, born 1915)

[edit]
Poul Nielsen (footballer, born 1915) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
Leo Nielsen (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kaj Nielsen (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jørgen Nielsen (footballer, born 1923) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John Nielsen (footballer, born 1911) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
And others listed below by Cbl62
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created in a rapid spree by creator based on database entries only (a behaviour for which creator has been previously sanctioned), thus failing WP:NOTDATABASE at the very least and also failing WP:GNG until such time somebody actually looks for sources. Should be deleted until such time somebody can actually bother to do the actual legwork and find proper sources for it, i.e. keeping a red link to encourage article (and not database entry) creation. These are the archetypical example of cookie-cutter-no-effort article creation which is not conducive to improving the encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. the rationale is that there is WP:NORUSH to have these articles and mainspace is not indefinite draft space. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete is fine by me, and what I was initially suggesting (if a bit verbose about it). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These all meet WP:NFOOTY having played in international matches for their national team. Creating articles rapidly is not a valid reason for deletion (and these were done 2+ months ago). This is a WP:POINTY nomination based on the previous AfD attempt at the similar article of Marcel Rewenig, their unhappiness with the closure, including this with the closer. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are terrible at mind reading; and for the last time, NFOOTY is not an inclusion criteria (by itself). "X played professional football" is not an exemption from meeting either WP:GNG or not falling into WP:NOT. WP:MEATBOT behaviour is grounds for sanctions, and we should not keep these articles indefinitely in mainspace if nobody is working to improve them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Due to failure to meet WP:GNG, and violation of WP:NOTDATABASE - an article sourced only to databases cannot be anything but a database. Further, I note that WP:NFOOTY is not sufficient reason to keep; per WP:NSPORT, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. BilledMammal (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, for now. Five different bios about different people in one AFD is not a good idea IMO 19 different bios in a single AFD nomination is absolutely absurd, and this should be speedily closed in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Updated comment at 00:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is fundamentally the same: these are all WP:NOTDATABASE violations, and there's WP:NORUSH to have them in article space if nobody is going to spend time improving them - and the article creator is obviously not interested in doing that, so it would be unfair to burden the rest of the community with that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They are all clear violations of WP:NOTDATABASE, and if you consider a database to be a primary source, WP:OR - as such, they are appropriate to group together. Ideally, the prod notice would not have been challenged without correcting the WP:NOT violation, but as it was we are now here. BilledMammal (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: I often share your concern with bundling, but in this case the bundling is appropriate given that each of the articles were created at the same time, one being copy pasted from the other, and having identical sourcing and virtually identical content with only minor tweaks. Cbl62 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph2302 There is nothing "random" about the grouping of these articles for deletion. As noted below, all of them (19 actually) were created at the same with only minor tweaks. They are appropriately dealt with as a group. Cbl62 (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete the Nielsens. The articles were created as part of a rapid spree in which articles were created in less than an hour on 19 Danish football players named Nielsen:
  1. Wilhelm Nielsen (Danish footballer) Dec 21 at 19:38, 1,358‎ characters
  2. Poul Nielsen (footballer, born 1915) Dec 21 at 19:34 +1,343‎ characters
  3. Leo Nielsen (footballer) Dec 21 at 19:31 +1,334‎ characters
  4. Kaj Nielsen (footballer) Dec 21 at 19:28 +1,360‎ characters
  5. Kai Nielsen (footballer) Dec 21 at 19:26 +1,341‎ characters
  6. Jørgen Nielsen (footballer, born 1923) Dec 21 at 19:23 +1,358‎ characters
  7. John Nielsen (footballer, born 1911) Dec 21 at 19:20 +1,341 characters‎
  8. Hugo Nielsen Dec 21 at 19:18 +1,342‎ characters
  9. Henry Nielsen (footballer) Dec 21 at 19:17 +1,367‎ characters
  10. Frank Nielsen (Danish footballer) Dec 21 at 19:13 +1,327‎ characters
  11. Flemming Nielsen (footballer, born 1954) Dec 21 at 19:11 +1,380 characters‎
  12. Erik Nielsen (footballer, born 1938) Dec 21 at 19:09 +1,322‎ characters
  13. Erik Nielsen (footballer, born 1932) Dec 21 at 19:07 +1,359‎ characters
  14. Benny Nielsen (footballer, born 7 March 1951) Dec 21 at 19:01 +1,346 characters
  15. Arthur Nielsen (footballer) Dec 21 at 18:59 +1,354‎ characters
  16. Arno Nielsen Dec 21 at 18:57 +1,348‎ characters
  17. Allan Nielsen (footballer, born 1953) Dec 21 at 18:54 +1,305 characters
  18. Aksel Nielsen (footballer) Dec 21 at 18:46 +1,355‎ characters
  19. Ernst Nielsen Dec 21 at 18:45 +1,367‎ characters
The articles are identical microstubs of about 1,350 characters, each copy/pasted with only minor tweaks (principally changing the given name) and supported only by the same generic citation to "EU Football and "worldfootball.ne". There is no SIGCOV presented on any of them. Deletion should be without prejudice to someone re-creating proper articles on any of the Nielsens who are actually notable. Cbl62 (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I share Joseph2302's concerns about this mass nomination, hard to see each on their own merits and I too wonder if WP:BEFORE has been done. I'm also not a fan of the initial PROD, which partly read "...Should be deleted until such time somebody can actually bother to do the actual legwork and find proper sources for it, i.e. keeping a red link to encourage article (and not database entry) creation." Why is the nominator not being bothered to do the actual legwork? Surely that's what this site is about, users adding to other users work? There seems to be too much lazy editing going on these days, perhaps there should be a term for it? Construction-shy, expansion-shy, work-shy? StickyWicket (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @AssociateAffiliate: WP:BEFORE says "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". The main concern is not notability. As for the rest of your comment, "collaborative editing" does not mean that we should accept sub-standard entries which violate one or more core policies (in this case, WP:NOT) simply because there is a remote possibility that an unspecified someone with enough time and will to do so could possibly make them into something more useful. It's not like we're deleting particularly valuable content: $playerName ($dateOfBirth – $dateOfDeath) was a Danish footballer.[1] He played in $numberOfMatches for the Denmark national football team (from/during/in) $timePeriod.[2] is the type of simple content you could literally program a bot to create... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC) edit: rewrite with php style variable syntax to make it more obvious 20:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AssociateAffiliate: We have here 19 near-identical, one-line articles created at the rate of about two per minute. When microstub articles like this are created en masse, how much time do you think should be spent on WP:BEFORE before nominating each of them? Cbl62 (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all international footballers who meet WP:NFOOTY. Articles need improving, not deletion. --SuperJew (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, an entirely irrelevant comment which completely misses the mark. NFOOTY is not a standard for inclusion by itself, and does not exempt articles from GNG, much less exempt them from WP:NOTDATABASE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment is entirely relevant. WP:NFOOTY is a reasonable assumption of notability. The question for AfD is "is this topic notable". The question you're asking is "is this a well-written article". --SuperJew (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, is there a website that contains old Danish newspapers? And has anyone done a BEFORE search on any of these? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just want to point out that the editor who nominated the first batch articles (then said "Oh, and those as well" after another editor listed more) is also the same editor who opened an RFC on overhauling NSPORTS. This appears to me to be a little WP:POINTY in that respect. I would suggest that these types of AfDs, especially bulk AfDs, be minimized unless/until NSPORTS is overhauled. Having said my piece on that, I recuse myself from !voting in this AfD. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:POINT only applies where an editor does something they don't support to make a point and as RandomCanadian does believe these articles should be deleted it doesn't apply here. BilledMammal (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed. The POINT being made is that RandomCanadian wants drastic changes to NSPORT, seemingly almost to the point of removing NSPORT as an SNG altogether; thus we have the mass bundled AfD pushing GNG as one of the reasons. The reason given in the initial PROD doesn't even address under which policy the article was nominated.
      I agree that this mass creation of essentially identical microstubs was inappropriate, but mass deletion shouldn't be the answer. I know I said I was recusing myself from !voting, but I rescind my recusal and will be !voting below. However, I will not !vote to keep them. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not a fan of bundled AfDs and have often voted to keep on procedural grounds when disparate people are bundled. But this one? This is probably as valid a bundled AfD as one can get: all 19 articles created on the same day (the same hour actually); all 19 articles dealing with 20th century Danish footballers named Nielsen; all 19 article of the same length and depth; all 19 articles citing the same databases; all 19 articles virtually identical (tweaking only minor details). Frankly, it seems that many in the FOOTY project will use whatever arguments are available to save these microstubs ... actually, I take that back, as there is actually one important argument that I don't hear being made, i.e., a showing of some actual SIGCOV. This is the kind of group response that tempts me to vote "Support" on Subproposal 3 and get rid of NFOOTY altogether. Cbl62 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. All the subjects appear to meet WP:NFOOTY, at least on the surface. I disapprove of the mass-creation of so many nearly identical microstubs, but I also disagree with the mass deletion of all of them. Move them into Draft – where they should have been created initially – to provide an opportunity for expansion and improvement. If they cannot be improved within a reasonable time period as determined by the standards at WP:AFC, then they can be deleted outright. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Flemming Nielsen (footballer, born 1954), which has been expanded a bit, unless evidence can be provided that any of rest of them meet the GNG. We do not need database entries masquerading as biographical "articles" that completely lack references to coverage in secondary sources. Time to put a stop to this. Cullen328 (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, procedurally oppose the nomination of all of these, instead of case by case.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ortizesp: What do you need to take on a case by case basis? Is Leo Nielsen (19 February 1918 – 13 June 1981) was a Danish footballer.[1] He played in one match for the Denmark national football team in 1946.[2] so radically different from Kaj Nielsen (23 December 1926 – 2 September 2002) was a Danish footballer.[1] He played in three matches for the Denmark national football team from 1952 to 1953.[2] that we need to have two different discussions on them? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep these need to be evaluated individually or this will become a clusterfuck. No prejudice against individual AfDs on all of these articles where we can properly evaluate this as I seriously doubt WP:BEFORE has been or even can be done in an AfD like this. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Articles for Deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP. "Should be deleted until such time somebody can actually bother to do the actual legwork and find proper sources for it" in the nomination suggests that the OP did not carry out a WP:BEFORE search on all articles. NemesisAT (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:DEL-REASON, violation of WP:NOT is reason to delete an article. If you want to keep these database entries in article space you either need to find coverage (if it exists), or remove WP:NOTDATABASE from WP:NOT. BilledMammal (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:DEL-REASON states "subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page". This requires a WP:BEFORE, which I doubt has been carried out for all 19 (!!) pages proposed for deletion here. NemesisAT (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:BEFORE doesn't apply here; it states "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" - in this case, the main concern is the violation of WP:NOT. And if correcting the WP:NOT violations is practical, then please demonstrate it - I will remove my support for deleting any article where it has been possible to correct the violation - at the moment, this only applies to Flemming Nielsen (footballer, born 1954). BilledMammal (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nemesis: How much do you consider is "practical" in attempting to fix 19 near-identical WP:NOTDATABASE entries which were created at a pace of one every 2 or 3 minutes? When I create (or improve) an article, I look for the sources before doing so. Here, even the article creator couldn't be arsed to do so, and his articles are clear WP:NOT violations. Even if I wanted to look for them (despite having absolutely no obligation to do so here), "Nielsen" is apparently a very common Danish name and looking for many of these actually yields plenty of other, actually notable footballers (to take as an obvious example, Poul Nielsen is also the name of the joint all-time best goalscorer for the Danish national time...). So, even if I had to, no, it is not a problem which can be resolved under any reasonable definition of "practical". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: All articles have at least 2 RS, all have played at least one game for the Danish national team Josey Wales Parley 17:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseywales1961: All the articles have exactly the same sources (which are very inclusive and indiscriminate databases, thus not very convincing); and "played at least one game for the Danish national team" does not grant footballers a superpower to ignore WP:NOT (or any other policy or guideline). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I somehow doubt that those claiming that it's impossible to discuss this many articles at once would actually be willing to discuss each article individually with much more depth than "keep per NSPORTS". Conveniently, these persons all vanish and refuse to talk any further when it's pointed out to them how these articles are all essentially the same: stubs referencing the same pair of databases, created minutes apart from each other, with zero signifcant coverage. Discussing the same thing 5 (or 19?) times over is plainly a waste of time, and a single bundled nomination is fully justified. Avilich (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep RandomCanadian should know not to be this stupid and that biographies should be nominated individually. Govvy (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Govvy: I think you should rephrase that. BilledMammal (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BilledMammal: Why? It's a stupid mistake to bundle multiple biographies together and the nominator knows this. It's not a true grouping as people have unique lives. He should send these articles separately to AfD. Govvy (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not WP:CIVIL. Also, it's an appropriate grouping, as discussed above. BilledMammal (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I normally don't reply to personal attacks, but I'll note that no reasoning has been provided to support the premise made that "biographies should [implied: always] be nominated individually", nor has any reasoning been provided to attempt to counter the argument why this grouping is entirely appropriate. In short, it is an evidence-less statement, and can't even be classified as some form of fallacy... Although, given the number of people who have made the exact same type of comment, one could call it an attempt at proof by assertion. Or, more crudely, a plain and blatant filibuster based on procedural nonsense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft to wikipedia's version of civility, people take that way too seriously, and besides, the nomination hasn't looked at how, when and why these people made it into the Danish national team. They played club football too, the articles are missing so much information. Let's take one of these articles to start with John Nielsen (footballer, born 1911) Lets ask, how did he make it to the national scene for the country? Well, he played club football as well.
(From the source in the article and not added)
Club career
07/1941 - 06/1944 - BK Fremad Amager
07/1934 - 06/1941 - KB København
07/1930 - 06/1934 - BK Fremad Amager
[1] Tells us he had a club career, and that should be a loop to look for newspaper articles at the top for his time at the clubs he played for. However, this is also WW2, so what did he do during the war years? Has anyone bother to look that up. Or even tried? I am sorry, but again I truly believe on my single assessment on one article that there is missing information to work with. And that's my view of one article. It's down to each article assessment, not a total. The bundle is based on the national caps and not the true content which can be provided. Hence, how, and why. Simple questions to look for, to throw these articles under the bus without research is blind nominations and I hate that. Hence, it's a stupid nomination. Govvy (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a valid argument. However, it is also entirely irrelevant, as the nomination here is not made on the basis of notability, but on the clear and blatant failure of WP:NOTDATABASE, as these are all clearly zero-effort articles created from copy-pasting from a database. It is not true that sports articles should get immunity from deletion, and it is even less true that I should bother to go spend hours digging through old danish newspapers when the creator literally spent seconds to create them. Insisting otherwise only shows how nominating each of these individually would make it even worse and require even more bureaucracy to clean-up the results from a few thoughtless actions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:NOT nomination; it is in full compliance with process. All that will happen if these articles are procedurally kept is the next day there will be eighteen separate nominations, and unless you are planning to !vote "Keep, meets WP:NFOOTY" in each of them they will be deleted, and the only difference will be that more time will have been wasted. BilledMammal (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Odd argument to use WP:NOTDATABASE, how is the information indiscriminate? Sadly the truth is that wikipedia is part database of information. The information on those articles are all clear and precise, this person played for the national team of this country. Do you have something against stub articles? Govvy (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the only sources which mention something are databases, it's hard to argue that these articles are anything but database entries masquerading as encyclopedic articles. Encyclopedias provide summaries of knowledge, they provide context for the data presented, they provide relevant background information. Much more than simple one-liners. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate one-liners created in a robot-like fashion. "Has played professional football" is not a magic keyword that somehow exempts any subject from that very basic requirement. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDATABASE applies because articles sourced entirely to databases cannot be anything other than a database entry; they cannot have encyclopedic value, as they lack explanations referenced to independent sources. BilledMammal (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there isn't any harm in giving the editors that do believe sources exist that could be used to improve the article the chance to do so in draft space? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is none; I just disagreed with the word "potential"; possibility would have been more accurate. However, given how little content is in these articles, I don't believe that they will be useful for editors seeking to write an article about one of these players. BilledMammal (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is none? Ye of little faith, kb.dk has a large archive of stuff to go through for the Danish reader. It's hard work when I don't know a word of Danish. Offline sources for the win! Govvy (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is none referred to the harm, not the coverage. As for that archive, it is only internet archives. If there is coverage of these individuals, it won't be in those archives - see my previous comment for the newspaper archive. BilledMammal (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify all - I struggle with bundled AfDs like this because it's difficult to evaluate the sources to determine if WP:GNG is met on all of them. However, in this case, the sources are almost certainly offline (where I lack the access and language skill to evaluate them properly), so it is just an impossible task to look into GNG compliance unless someone can post the sources for us. As such, pushing these to draft space gives that someone the opportunity to make a case for them passing the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep the bundling of bios was already inappropriate under WP:BUNDLE, but to then also change the pages being proposed for deletion in the middle of the discussion? Definitely think these need to be re-proposed and evaluated on their merits individually. Jay eyem (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jay eyem, Ortizesp, Govvy, and GiantSnowman: To be clear, you have no issue with each of these being re-nominated individually the day after they are closed, despite the fact that it appears clear they will all be deleted in such a discussion, and the only effect will be to waste everyone's time? BilledMammal (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would probably have issue, I think they should all be kept individually anyways.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Waste everybody's time? You mean like inappropriately bundling several bios together in the first place, then nominating additional articles DURING a discussion is not already wasting everybody's time? How about accusing someone of canvassing because they notified the relevant WikiProject, something the page explicitly says is acceptable? That seems like a waste of everybody's time. As is the bad faith accusation that WP:FOOTY is a partisan group. Not that time really matters here because there is no deadline and specifically we should not rush to delete anything. So slow your roll and stop acting like the outcome is predetermined. Jay eyem (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Jay eyem: When you say "no rush", do you also mean "no rush to copy-paste articles from databases"? The creator of these is probably the most egregious offender in that aspect. If nobody is willing to put time into improving those articles, and instead people are going to insist on procedural nonsense filibustering, that quite rightly justifies that those articles shouldn't have been created in the first place. Wikipedia is not a database, not a directory-like listing of context-less entries, and most importantly, not a sports fansite. These articles are all exact copy-pastes of each others with details changed. It is simply not true that sportsperson get a magic shield from meeting inclusion requirements the moment they're created, and it is absolutely infuriating that people are seemingly fine with them when every other single article on the encyclopedia requires people to put time and effort into it. If this were absolutely any freakin other subject, those articles, which are blatant and unambiguous WP:NOT violations, would long have been deleted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Probably because it was wildly inappropriate to bundle these in the first place, and even more inappropriate to add additional articles AFTER the discussion was already underway. WP:MULTIAFD makes it pretty clear that there are four categories of articles that may be bundled: 1. A group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles. This is clearly not the case here, because they represent different individuals. 2. A group of hoax articles by the same editor. These do not appear to be hoaxes by any reasonable definition. 3. A group of spam articles by the same editor. While I find the creation of these articles to be premature and lacking in content, the articles clearly are not spam. And 4. A series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products. This is clearly not applicable in any shape or form. Additionally, the page states that for the avoidance of doubt, bundling should not be used to form consensus around policy decisions such as "should Wikipedia include this type of article". Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy. If you're unsure, don't bundle it. As you are fully aware there is a current discussion (also, far from a consensus) regarding this issue, so if anything this bundled nomination should have taken place AFTER the conclusion of that discussion. And while you can add additional articles to a nomination after the first post, MULTIAFD also states that for the sake of clarity, debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate, ideally before any substantive discussion. Except there was already substantive discussion when those were added to the nomination! And honestly? My personal opinion would be to move all of them to the draft space. Kind of like this recent AfD which was just a few months ago. The difference here is that the nomination here is really truly a trainwreck, especially since this has that massive ongoing discussion at the village pump. Sometimes it's ok to ignore the rules, but I really don't think this is one of those times. Jay eyem (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • All those articles have exactly the same bloody content: $playerName ($dateOfBirth – $dateOfDeath) was a Danish footballer.[1] He played in $numberOfMatches for the Denmark national football team (from/during/in) $timePeriod.[2]; under slightly different titles. Now if like everybody else you're going to try some silly procedural obstructionism, that's your own choice. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • You need to calm the hell down. These are not "slightly" different titles, these are entirely different individuals who should all be evaluated on their own merits. So yes, they should have been nominated individually. I think you have become way too involved in this discussion if you feel the need to badger all the people that disagree with you. And if you are so concerned with people who are legitimately concerned about how poorly thought out this AfD was, then maybe you should have followed procedure in the first place. Jay eyem (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • These articles have been done at the same time and are "fill-in-the-blanks" variations. You are asking @RandomCanadian: to delete each one individually. They were created in mass, should they be discussed that way? Isn't this like throwing stuff on the wall and seeing what sticks? With other editors' time cleaning up? ReTeam (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'll just defer to SuperJew's earlier quote on the matter at hand: The question for AfD is "is this topic notable". The question you're asking is "is this a well-written article". This seems to be missing from the conversation even though it is the whole point of AfD. Far too much of the argument for deletion has been focused on the poor quality of the articles and not focused on notability, for which players should be evaluated individually. Otherwise you might as well include every single football stub in existence for this AfD (which seems to be much of the purpose of the ongoing village pump discussion). Honestly, I don't think the proposal for deletion would be getting nearly as much pushback if they were just nominated individually, and I don't see what would be so hard about doing that. Bios in particular should be evaluated on their own merits. Jay eyem (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said previously, I can demonstrate that WP:NFOOTY is partisan, and thus notifying them like was done is votestacking, if that will convince you that the notifications are inappropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I mean feel free to try and prove that. I think it is completely absurd to accuse an entire project of being partisan, but if you're willing to try and convince myself and others then do so. Jay eyem (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep or Draftify Per above, many appear notable. Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --- Løken (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as they lack evidence of notability (as in significant coverage, not some dubious rule that players for national teams are always notable, sources be damned). People can always recreate them if and when significant coverage is found. Until then, very little is lost by deleting these, it's not as if by reading these "articles" you get an actual attempt at a basic biography of these people, but instead you get a single element only. And on a procedural note, if they can be created in batch, they can be deleted in batch. Fram (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE ALL Delete the first five Redirect per @Joseph2302: Don't keep (I didn't mean to be shouting on the first one) I think that @Lugnuts: makes @RandomCanadian:'s point pretty clearly here: [2]. I want to emphasize "I was simply going through a list of international footballers with no articles". This indicates to me a belief that any Danish footballer who has ever played in even one game (three of the first five) deserves an article because sometime in the future somebody may be bored enough to improve one. I think that a potential list is being turned into a flood of near-useless stubs.
My impression, by looking at their userpage, is that this editor may count articles created simply because of the count, not because of their content or potential. AGF whatever, this is what they blast all over their user page, the importance of their count.
Now I imagine we will go back to the process and pretend that any one of these articles (I only checked the first five) has any potential value as an article instead of as part of a list. This is going back to 2005-2010 when people were making up articles just trying to get Wikipedia going. It's going now, there are too many stubs left over from then, we don't need to actively create them for possible potential any more. ReTeam (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can you vote to delete all in good faith when you "only checked the first five"? That to me signals the need for these to be nominated individually and not all at the same time. NemesisAT (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also wonder how someone with only a few dozen edits over a decade, including only three or four edits in the past five years, would stumble across my talkpage and/or this AfD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I have corrected my post to your liking? Process. How can you possibly use my opinion as a reason to assume there are other articles that may have value? That doesn't follow.
Your question is fair, this is a lost then later found account that I am using to keep this garbage away from my real content. Despite your ego I don't know anyone here, I was wandering around Denmark and noticed this. Of course I checked your talk page trying to understand your motive, which I think I do. ReTeam (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ReTeam: Please have another look given the concerns with redirect noted below. I think "soft delete" (which allows for recreation with better sourcing) or "draftify" are the better outcomes here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: I can't comment because I don't know the proceedure. I object to these being thrown up as stub articles but don't know/care what happens to them. Joseph2302 seemed to have a resonable idea, don't throw them out, put them somewhere, but I have no idea where/how. Sorry. ReTeam (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
"Draftify" would move the articles to draft space where they would have time to be developed further. Cbl62 (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can read Wikipedia:Drafts if you are not familiar, I didn't know what it meant when I first saw it myself. Jay eyem (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further note to closer. IMO redirects are not the best outcome in cases such as "Allan Nielsen (footballer, born 1953)" or "John Nielsen (footballer, born 1911)", as these are not natural search terms. As for "Hugo Nielsen", I submit that the name is simply too common (a search turns up several notable or semi-notable persons with the name Hugo Nielsen and/or the other common Scandinavian variants, Neilsen/Nielson/Neilson/Nilsson) to redirect such a common search term to the list of Danish football players. I voted to "soft delete" but believe "draftify" is also a reasonable outcome. Either of these options permit subsequent efforts to create actual encyclopedic content on any of these players who may actually prove to be notable. Cbl62 (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[3] @ 0230 X pain/boredom. ReTeam (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of what Froztbyte mentions sounds like SIGCOV. Rather, it all sounds like brief mentions. Cbl62 (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Man's Land, Falkland Islands

[edit]
No Man's Land, Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this place does seem to exist, there is nothing indicating that it meets notability guidelines. Searching for '"no man's land" falkland' and '"tierra de nadie" malvinas' doesn't return any results for reliable sources (beside a book by the name "Tierra de nadie", which doesn't seem to be about the location) ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miangul Mahmud Aurangzeb

[edit]
Miangul Mahmud Aurangzeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NACADEMIC is not met with. Notability is not inherited either. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Khyber Medical College is part of the larger Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, Pakistan which is a major recognized university by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (a reference is also included showing this by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan). Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say it's a "major" university? And anyway, he's not the president of Khyber Medical University so C6 doesn't apply regardless of whether it's major. JoelleJay (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dean is not the highest post of S. Asian universities. So whether or not Khyber Medical University is a major institution is irrelevant. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2022 (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 withdrawn by nominator. The nominator had requested speedy deletion of the nomination, which I initially declined. However, he has since confirmed that this nomination was an error (and thus I should have speedily deleted it, or at least closed it), so there's no need to keep it open any longer; nobody else has supported deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb

[edit]
Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no claim to notability. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb is a Justice on the Islamabad High Court which has been verified with a reference to a major Pakistani new journal. That is something which does not need to be done more than once when combined with the reference to his biography on the court website. There is a feature on Wikipedia which helps to determine notability and it looks like this. What you should do is click on news and scholar the next time you want to question notability.

Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb

edits since nomination)

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

RichardBond (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2022 (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 Bendigo#Culture and events. ✗plicit 00:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nimbus Rooftop Bar

[edit]
Nimbus Rooftop Bar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As argued by User:Bonewah in response to a Third opinion, this article does not seem to meet the notability criteria. The bar was opened in 2019, and has been discussed in local press and in more routine reviews that do not help establish notability per WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS. Femke (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2022 (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 00:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jagran Institute of Communication and Management

[edit]
Jagran Institute of Communication and Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable (and defunct) private education provider. PepperBeast (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jang and Kev

[edit]
Jang and Kev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable photography business. PepperBeast (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jayakrishna Dikshitar

[edit]
Jayakrishna Dikshitar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable religious figure, I think. Article appears to be promotional. PepperBeast (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2022 (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 00:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ojos Rojos

[edit]
Ojos Rojos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band PepperBeast (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2022 (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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Testify (band)

[edit]
Testify (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only a single affiliated source given. WP:BEFORE finds nothing better - just social media and a tribute act. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   15:21, 12 February 2022 (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 consensus, lack of notability. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Swanner

[edit]
Brent Swanner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. All sources are own web-site or affiliated or marketing sites. Nothing indicates notability. WP:BEFORE reveals nothing better - more of the same plus social media. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   15:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only see CD Baby on his discography; what label are you referring to? JSFarman (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up CD Baby on Wikipedia. CD Baby calls themselves the anti-label but they are actually a huge label that " offers digital music distribution, worldwide publishing rights administration, monetization of music use on social video platforms, sync licensing, music marketing, online advertising, cover song licensing, and physical distribution and order fulfillment for CDs and vinyl records. By opting into their online distribution service, artists can authorize CD Baby to act on their behalf to submit music for sale to online retailers such as Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora Radio, and 150+ other streaming services". That's what a label does. CD Baby represents a lot of notable artist. 113andathird (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They actually do more than most major labels! But CD Baby isn't a label; they are a service provider.
I just checked out your user page and discovered that you are new to Wikipedia. The notability criteria can be confusing. I'd be happy to help you learn your way around if you're interested. Just leave a message on my talk page. JSFarman (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notable artists that work with CD Baby are such a rare occurrence that there's actually a short list of them in the article CD Baby! In any case, the WP:GNG problem isn't resolved by his collaboration with CD Baby. Pichpich (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I stand corrected. Should I delete CD Baby from the Discography? But I'm not giving up on this and I am trying to get this right. Thank you all for your suggestions. 113andathird (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I spent some time before nominating this looking for better sources but I could find none. While it may be possible that an editor within the local geographic area may be able to find print material not available on line, that does seem a little unlikely. My own view is that Draftifying will just delay the inevitable by about 6 months  Velella  Velella Talk   17:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did too but I only searched via Google, where I found nothing. There are offline references via ProQuest that are unlikely to save this article but will impact the article on the band - ("Meeting people where they're hurting is ministry of Testify" Griffin, Pam.McClatchy - Tribune Business News; Washington [Washington]. 05 Aug ; 2006: 1. "Southern gospel sound uplifts its audience" Haag, Diane.The Times; Shreveport, La. [Shreveport, La]. 19 June 2006: D.1.") I haven't had a chance to check NewsBank or NewspaperARCHIVE yet but I suspect more coverage will exist. I don't consider deletion inevitable (although likely) and I think we should give a new editor the benefit of the doubt. JSFarman (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found two more articles that cover Testify in-depth, but Swanner is only mentioned. I no longer think draftifying is a solid option, but I hope that 113andathird will add to the Testify article if it's kept and continue to contribute to Wikipedia. JSFarman (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now that I understand things better around here, I agree that Brent Swanner is not a stand alone article. But really believe Testify (Christian band) is. May I suggest a re-direct and/or a merger of Brent Swanner to Testify? 113andathird (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kala Doriya

[edit]
Kala Doriya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Moved to mainspace for the second time, already draftified once, whcih means it would be move warring to move it back.

Fails WP:GNG, is WP:TOOSOON FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:44, 12 February 2022 (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 Aleida Guevara. ✗plicit 14:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chavez, Venezuela, and the New Latin America

[edit]
Chavez, Venezuela, and the New Latin America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK, the article was created without sources in 2007 and ever since the book appears to have failed to gain any notability at all. NoonIcarus (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Russell (software engineer)

[edit]
Alex Russell (software engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Software developer doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO- lacks in-depth coverage in independent (e.g. non-interview) sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 12 February 2022 (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 00:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudian

[edit]
Cloudian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod; fails WP:CORPDEPTH (see arguments in WP:SERIESA). All sources are either or both of PR or routine announcements. FalconK (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of additional content added in the past 24 hours.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NCORP requires 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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:01, 13 February 2022 (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 00:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bradford

[edit]
Adam Bradford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N due to lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. Relies heavily on primary sources and trivial mentions. Most secondary sources are from Sheffield Star and other local news; minor local media coverage doesn't meet the threshold for notability (WP:SIGCOV). Dead links excluded, he is the subject of only three secondary sources cited. 25% of sources are about his father. Another 25% of sources barely mention him (WP:TRIVIALMENTION). In total, half the cited sources aren't about him; most mention him in only a single sentence and two make no mention of him at all. His YouTube page and organizations with which he was involved are cited; as primary sources, they can't be used to establish notability (WP:GNG). Flagged as a possible WP:COI because the article may have been written by Adam Bradford himself; it was created by "Abradford2014" and is their sole contribution to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Adbradford2014). Inclusion of personal information (such as date of birth, where he grew up, education) that doesn't seem to be publicly available bolsters the idea that this article was written by the subject himself or somebody close to him.JMB1980 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm sorry, because he seems a good guy, who's done good things despite disadvantages. But he certainly doesn't meet any standards of notability as an entrepreneur or businessman. His record in Companies house shows that he's been associated with a number of businesses that appeared, and then disappeared without even filing a single set of accounts; for example BetProtect Ltd, which was incorporated with £2 and voluntarily struck off less than 2 years later, ABA UK holdings which has assets of less than £11K and no employees, and Adamstart Global, which started with £2 and closed in under a year. Google finds loads of stuff about him, but it's all interviews. Although his aims are national or global, most of the reporting is local to Sheffield, which suggests lack of wider impact. Things like the BBC NewsBeat article suggest notability but are entirely written by him - and we can't have an article that's supported only by the subject's own writings, with no secondary sources! The Enterprising Child book is also a bit of a dubious source of notability; he didn't write it, and it doesn't look like a best-seller, judging by Amazon (perhaps someone with the book can comment on whether it discusses him in depth). I can't see how we can write anything independent about him, given the sources available, so I can't see how we can have a good article. Elemimele (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : I see this source gives him some coverage but this is an interview. Confusing a bit, but this subject is clearly promotional. Need to go a through look-up before I !Vote. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 22:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I should point out that first source is about his father as much as it is about him, and excessive focus on his father is already an issue with this article and its sources. The second is in his own words, making it a primary source and ineligible to establish notability.JMB1980 (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see only one resource actually about him, and that is the first one listed in the article. All of the later sources that I could reach are mentions. However, I found that he has written numerous articles for local (Yorkshire) newspapers and at least one for the Guardian. These are mostly short articles about his experience with gambling:
"Adam Bradford: Please don't abuse me or my family for wanting tougher gambling laws." Star (Sheffield) [Sheffield, England], 27 Aug. 2018. Gale OneFile: News, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A551953221/STND?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=518708ff. Accessed 13 Feb. 2022.
"Keep gaming free of addictive add-ons to avoid another gambling epidemic -- Yorkshire campaigner Adam Bradford." Yorkshire Post [Leeds, England], 29 Aug. 2019. Gale OneFile: News, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A597843359/STND?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=dc741112. Accessed 13 Feb. 2022.
I don't think these are enough for general notability nor for author. He is no doubt a campaigner against gambling, but seems not to have yet made his mark. Lamona (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gma1tv

[edit]
Gma1tv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article claims "He has been a part of most big productions that have taken place in Zimbabwe since 2018." But there are no sources for that. Or independent sources at all for that matter. I was unable to find significant coverage. Pikavoom Talk 09:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:52, 12 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Scott

[edit]
Iain Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD: "he managed a professional club playing in the professional 2nd tier of Scottish football (at the time)" Queen of the South were part-time until 2007 according to their own website "Chairman Davie Rae made the decision that the club would move to full time football at the start of the 2007/08 season". In any case the lack of SIGCOV denotes a GNG failure. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Überwachungsgeschwader

[edit]
Überwachungsgeschwader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources The Banner talk 12:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment here are some possible sources: (1) das Neue Zuercher Zeitung (I have genuinely no idea who this newspaper is), "Das Schweizer Überwachungsgeschwader" [5], see also an in-depth journal article by Heinrich Horber archived at [6]. The article already contains a couple of books in its external links; Hanspeter Ruckli's book is available second-hand but I don't know if it's in any libraries. It might be a decent source. Elemimele (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See Neue Zuercher Zeitung. It's been "neue" for two centuries. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A dearth of sources is not a valid reason for deletion. Other equivalent level units of the Swiss Air Force have articles, so that deletion would be destructive. Already tagged for improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it is, per deletion policy of long standing; but in this instance it's not fully the case. However, it's hard to find this covered in depth, and not as part of another subject, such as the book that I found that discussed the career path options for pilots, listed this as one, and didn't go into much detail. Then there's the overlap with another article. Uncle G (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The poor reader coming to the article might well wonder why the Swiss Air Force needed a unit for overalls. Did they get really dirty? ☺ But Elemimele is right, this is in books, and Napier 2020, p. 259 provides the comprehensible English language explanation that the article at hand (clearly a not very good translation from de:Überwachungsgeschwader, in fairness) does not. However, the fact that Berufsfliegerkorps largely duplicates this article strongly hints that the two can be covered as one in some way.
    • Napier, Michael (2020). "In neutral skies: Switzerland". In Cold War Skies: NATO and Soviet Air Power, 1949–89. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9781472836885.
  • Uncle G (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MILUNIT #7. Clearly has sources. Print sources are acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm unable to assess the sources in detail due to lack of relevant language skills, but the two news articles appear solid based on machine translation. There are also two books listed in the External Links section, which appear to be related based on the titles. At the same time, I'm WP:AGF on the books, and hence "weak keep". -Ljleppan (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2022 (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 draftify. ✗plicit 12:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Father (2022 film)

[edit]
Dear Father (2022 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An upcoming film not yet passes WP:NFILM. DMySon (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2022 (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 12:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infinitesolutions

[edit]
Infinitesolutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A sort of "procedural" nomination; PROD declined by author with no explanation (Reason: No indication of why this channel is notable enough for its own article.) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Couldn't find any significant coverage of this Youtube channel. It needs RS to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG

UphillAthlete (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2022 (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 12:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculate Conception Parochial School

[edit]
Immaculate Conception Parochial School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The article has been unsourced since its creation. No WP:RS can be found on Google. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:48, 12 February 2022 (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 12:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Valley Christian Academy

[edit]
Emerald Valley Christian Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. A quick Google search gave me nothing but a bunch of directory-like sites and the school's website and Facebook page (no WP:RS). —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural keep. No prejudice to immediate separate renominations to discuss the merits of each subject. ✗plicit 12:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Plant

[edit]
Anthony Plant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Technically passes NFOOTY due to an FLT appearance, but clearly fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Mitchell Culshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Will McGuffie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mwiya Malumo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Theo Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Noted. Happy to withdraw this nomination and relist separately if that's how things are normally done. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2022 (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 12:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eenasul Fateh

[edit]
Eenasul Fateh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable. Unreliable sources. - AlbeitPK (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2022 (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 12:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaan Kevser-Junior

[edit]
Kaan Kevser-Junior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable footballer; fails WP:GNG and barely passes WP:NFOOTY, having played for five minutes in just one game that meets the criteria.

See source assessment table for a review of all coverage, either in the article or identifiable through a news search.

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/sport/football/crawley-town-snap-up-young-midfielder-3408606 No Most content consists of quotes from Crawley Yes No The only independent statements are that he has been training with the club since the start of the 2021-2022 season, and that he has been named as a substitute for a game ✘ No
https://www.crawleytownfc.com/news/2021/october/reds-sign-kaan-kevser-junior/ No Published by Crawley Yes No ✘ No
https://ajansspor.com/haber/17-yasindaki-turk-oyuncu-hedeflerini-acikladi-584914 No Consists entirely of quotes from Kevser-Junior ✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/players/kaan-kevser-junior/793165/ Yes Yes No Database ✘ No
https://www.soccerbase.com/players/player.sd?player_id=145212 Yes Yes No Database ✘ No
https://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/19628350.crawley-town-sign-promising-midfielder-kaan-kevser-junior/ ~ Mostly consists of quotes from Crawley Yes No Only coverage that could count is a single sentence stating "The midfielder has joined the Reds on a two-year deal with an option of a third-year after impressing during training with the club", which is not sufficient ✘ No
https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/player-seals-agreement-to-sign-for-crawley-town/ Yes No Says little beyond that Kevser-Junior has signed with Crawley, and speculation that he will be "delighted" with this. ✘ No
https://www.newschainonline.com/sport/mens-sport/football/josh-andrews-misses-out-through-injury-as-rochdale-host-crawley-229082 Yes No Only mention of Kevser-Junior is "New signing Kaan Kevser-Junior could also feature after playing five minutes from the bench in their midweek Papa John’s Trophy game." ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2022 (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) Mako001 (C)  (T)  03:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SNOW. Mako001 (C)  (T)  03:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology of disaster

[edit]
Sociology of disaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As its maintenance template says, this article has a distinct essay-like tone. Indeed, looking at the talk page, it appears to have been written as some sort of school assignment. The bibliography and further reading sections are composed entirely of theses/white papers, etc. and the subject in general appears to have low notability. Propose deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just Another Cringy Username (talk • contribs) 2022-02-12T07:32:20 (UTC)

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. I would follow the advice to redirect to Gottfried Fritschel article but that is not in very good shape either. Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George J. Fritschel

[edit]
George J. Fritschel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the notability guideline for academics. They didn't receive any awards and did not hold any notable positions. I did find a book they wrote here but it does not seem notable enough for the author to have an article. Wgullyn (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on his father, who is more clearly notable. I think it's very likely that someone could write a decent article on him or "The Fritschel family" more broadly, but the sources will not be easy to track down as they are 100 years old and in German. I'm personally not inclined to do that kind of digging right now, and no one else has stepped forward to do so in the last ten years either. -- asilvering (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sources do not establish that WP:ANYBIO is met. I'm happy to reconsider if more sources are found. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The NY Times obituary is a single sentence, so I'm afraid that doesn't help. I added a few more publications to the article but I don't think they suffice. I can find mentions in G-books: 1) an obit (I believe, from the snippet) [14] 2) a reference to one of his books [15] 3) a reference in a book in German [16]. All are on the subject of theology. None seem to be significantly about him. Lamona (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tourist attractions in Toronto

[edit]
List of tourist attractions in Toronto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. WP:NOTGUIDE — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:04, 12 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Jallier

[edit]
Alexandre Jallier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

French basketball player who debuted in the 2012-2013 season - and this article has been basically untouched since then. It looks like that's the only season he ever played. No WP:N of any kind as far as I can tell. asilvering (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC) My bad there; he looks much more borderline now. So, to the floor: WP:GNG pass or not? -- asilvering (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 12 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garima Arora (actress)

[edit]
Garima Arora (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. Also, references are just promotional. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 12 February 2022 (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 Public housing estates on Tsing Yi Island#Easeful Court. Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Easeful Court

[edit]
Easeful Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 03:10, 12 February 2022 (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 Public housing estates in Ho Man Tin#Cascades. Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cascades, Hong Kong

[edit]
Cascades, Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 03:09, 12 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypso (novel)

[edit]
Apocalypso (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Novel is not notable Uwsi (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Robert Rankin (which is actually a generous solution). I find nothing significant about this book in reviews. Note that there are similar articles for many other of his books. Some have synopses that provide a fair amount of text, but I haven't found any with sources that I would consider sufficient for a separate article. Lamona (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Love (2008 film)

[edit]
Baby Love (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM. Nothing found in a BEFORE. One small citation from Elle, but not enough.

PROD was removed when the Elle citation was added. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:21, 12 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tourist attractions in Kolar district

[edit]
List of tourist attractions in Kolar district (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. WP:NOTGUIDE — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:02, 12 February 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_February_12&oldid=1073042316"