< February 02	February 04 >

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

The result was merge to BirdLife Australia#Awards. Star Mississippi 18:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Hobbs Medal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. 1 hit in gnews, nothing in trove.nla.gov.au other coverage merely confirms people won the award. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Oppose~~. The article is essentially a list of mostly notable people who share the award because of their notable achievements. It provides useful information by bringing them together as a group. Maias (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maias. I have taken the liberty and "standardised" your !vote. Aoziwe (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to BirdLife Australia, where it's already mentioned. I'm not sure a full list of recipients is needed, particularly as many don't appear notable. --Michig (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to BirdLife Australia#Awards. The subject is of relative importance in the field of interest it is awarded for and is a likely search term. The list is not specifically notable in its own right, but would add valuable due weight content to the BirdLife Australia#Awards section. If this had been PRODed I may well have BOLDly done so. Aoziwe (talk) 10:09, 4 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 Faron Young#Discography. ✗plicit 23:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The All-Time Great Hits of Faron Young[edit]

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

I found no independent references other than the AllMusic review already cited, so it doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUM. The helper5667 (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I checked my copy of Joel Whitburn's Top Country Albums 1964-1997, and this particular album is not listed. Cbl62 (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faron Young#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faron Young#Discography. Via a Google Books search, the album is listed occasionally in histories of Young's career but I can find nothing significant enough to justify an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I doubt a redirect is appropriate either. Ciridae (talk) 12:18, 10 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faraaz Kazi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Most of the sources are only interviews or self written pieces which should not be independent sources. It is also written like a complete advertisement. Previous discussion in 2013. I don't see pages created these days allowed with such minimal coverage. Glassesgalore123 (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Glassesgalore123 (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, sources used aren't proper RS and don't establish WPGNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources that meet the requirements of WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 17:21, 4 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 merge to Liturgical book of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Not a ton of participation, but nom is on board as well. Star Mississippi 02:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Common Worship of 1906[edit]

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

Unsourced article on topic covered by the more expansive article Liturgical book of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Liturgical book of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).Gusfriend (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would not be opposed to a merge but since all information is unsourced I feel inclined towards a speedy deletion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This one has some stuff in it that isn't covered by the Liturgical book of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) article that seems useful to me. The quotes at least are sourced now. -- asilvering (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I can back merging. Is that something I should do myself or is there a process? ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:38, 11 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 , as indicated in the nom. Doing so after this close given the differing targets Star Mississippi 02:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepy Hollow (Mars)[edit]

Also including: Larry's Lookout

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

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

Neither of these are notable Martian geographic features. According to the one research paper that discusses it [1] Sleepy Hollow likely represents a degraded impact crater with an approximate diameter of 17 metres. For comparison, there are 90 million craters on mars over 25 metres in diameter [2]. The paper doesn't really substantiate that the hollow is itself notable, the information is better included in a hypothetical article on Martian impact cratering. Sleepy Hollow is mentioned in the Spirit (rover) article and can be redirected there. Larry's Lookout is discussed in research papers as part of the broader topic of Husband Hill of which it is part, and should probably be redirected there, as it lacks any separate notability. Husband Hill could maybe be merged into Columbia Hills (Mars), but that's outside the scope of this AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. PianoDan (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:17, 4 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 14:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Evans[edit]

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

I don't think Ms. Evans's beauty contest wins meet the "well-known and significant award or honor" criterion of WP:ANYBIO. She hosted one episode of the television show Wild On!, and had a minor role in the film Deep in the Valley. I looked for sources and found two interviews[3] [4], plus some passing mentions and trivial coverage. Cheers, gnu 57 20:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 20:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 20:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 20:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with our move away from treating some publications as able to give default notability through inclusion of people I do not think we have the souring or clear indications of notability here we need to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She crosses the threshold of meeting our general notability guidelines. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VAGUEWAVE. Pilaz (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think generally, she appears to have achieved notability through an array of high profile media events. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passing mentions and trivial coverage do not count towards WP:NBIO because they are not significant coverage. Interviews are primary sources and not independent from the author, so they can't count towards NBIO either. Attending "high profile media events" does not imply inherent notability. Pilaz (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Oh my god. I can't believe this is even being considered as a Keep. According to WP:ENT, for her to be a notable enough person, she would have had to have:

1. had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or

2. made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

So, how would she qualify exactly? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced BLP. Carrite (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero referencing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:08, 8 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Jawa[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Arrested for a single offense that is not particularly noteworthy. Nothing else of note. RegentsPark (comment) 22:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for what types of crimes and coverage lead to notability. Probably also fails our not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has not received the same level of coverage as what's included on Global surveillance and journalism. Fails WP:CRIME. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:01, 9 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 merge to RC Bafoussam. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stade Municipal de Bamendzi[edit]

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

Lack of Notability

Hello.

I believe this article, which has suffered from a lack of sources since 2009, does not meet WP:N, and I have been unable to find any real reliable sources other than autogenerated site data like directions applications and basic geographic data. There are a few news articles in French that mention it in passing, but no real info about the place itself.

Considering how obscure this place is, my inability to find a single reliable source, and the small size of the stadium. Honestly, I have local high school auditoriums and gyms that can fit more people than the article says the stadium can.

If you have a reason to object or a reliable source you found, let me know.

EytanMelech (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether this is valid or not, there is not RS here in the article, so I can't see it justified in remaining up without anything that supports WP:GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into RC Bafoussam- the team that plays there. We have done the same for other similarly non-notable football stadia. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into club article per above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect into RC Bafoussam as above. Giant Snowman 18:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold, and just Redirect (or merge if there's anything of note here) to RC Bafoussam. We don't need AFDs for this. Nfitz (talk) 00:31, 6 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 23:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Porter Van Zandt[edit]

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

Biography of a stage actor and theatre manager, whose attempted notability claims are referenced entirely to primary sources rather than reliable or notability-building sources. As always, notability in Wikipedia isn't established just by using primary sources to verify facts, and instead requires media coverage to externally validate the significance of said facts -- but the sources here are IMDB, other IMDB-like directories, his paid-inclusion obituary in the newspaper classifieds and genealogical documents, with not even one piece of WP:GNG-worthy journalistic coverage about his work in a newspaper, magazine or book shown at all.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to pass GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be built on Sigcov in reliable, secondary sources, this article is not. Although considering how many articles we have that only cite IMDb, this article is by no means to worst offender, but we do not keep the bad just because there is much worse.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 4 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 and salt. However it's a valid search term, so what I will salt is the post-delete redirect. Star Mississippi 02:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anupam Mittal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not WP:NOTCV. In past, multiple attempts has been made to move this entity into the main article namespace. High possibility of WP:COI/WP:UPE. It's time for WP:SALT. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @K.e.coffman: for an assessment (not for vote) as he had once nominated this entity for an AfD in 2017. -Hatchens (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: my assessment remains the same: "An advertorially toned BLP on an unremarkable businessperson. Significant RS coverage not found. Article cited to online directories, passing metions, WP:SPIP or other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created and edited by a number of blocked socks; sample: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jiteshdugar."

In this case, the article was created by Special:Contributions/Patroong with few other contributions outside the topic. So UPE is likely. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I stumbled upon this BLP after watching Mittal on Shark Tank India where he's one of the shark. This BLP might not be written well but the subject seems notable in so many ways. Other than being a great entrepreneur who built businesses like Shaadi.com, Makaan.com, he was lead actor in Flavors (film), also co-produced 99 (2009 film). I suggest we rescue this BLP and improve it. --Saqib (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the films were financed by him, he didnt had a lead role in Flavors (film), he had an appearance with other actors in the movie. One appearance in a movie, fails WP:Actor. If he can have a Wikipedia page, invite everyone who has some money and appeared on any show as a judge. 27.100.15.30 (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt: The subject is a borderline case and most of the articles are routine which anyone can have one they are featured in a reality show as a judge. He is a minority share holders in most of his companies. There are multiple occasions when their PR team has hired freelancers to Create his page. A very clear case of undisclosed paid edits and violation. This time don’t delete it, burn it. 2409:4052:2EA5:945E:8555:FF96:7101:84F7 (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:Actor, has mostly routine coverage. 27.100.15.30 (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:@27.100.15.30: He is not an actor. He is an entrepreneur. 卂卄卩 talk 03:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Favonian (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shark Tank India Rest of the panel doesn't have articles, and per WP:CHEAP. Also salt to discourage re-creation. Nate • (chatter) 23:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Shark Tank India As per Nate. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage beside Shark Tank TV show. Neurofreak (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Falls short of WP:GNG due to lack of independent non-trivial coverage. Most sources seem to be interviews, announcements and passing mentions which do not contribute to notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:34, 10 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. Star Mississippi 03:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Gold Derby Music Awards[edit]

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

No evidence of coverage for these awards in reliable sources; the only coverage I've found is at the website itself ~~and at IMDb (not a reliable source or indicative of notability)~~. Worth noting that the similar page Gold Derby Awards was deleted in 2020 (it has since been recreated as a redirect). RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The IMDb links were for the film awards presented by Gold Derby, not the music awards. Doesn't make much of a difference, but I've struck it accordingly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the film AfD, same reason that no methodology is known, lack of voter independence, and that it's a webforum that can be modified at any time to award or take away what we don't know is a physical trophy, and a plain WP:GNG failure. Nate • (chatter) 22:33, 3 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne Martinez[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that she's a city councillor and former mayor of a small municipality with a population of just 12K, but people at the local level of office don't get automatic notability freebies just for existing as politicians: at this level of office, the notability test is the ability to write a substantive and well-sourced article that establishes a reason to treat them as much more nationally or internationally significant than the norm for that level of significance.
But the references here aren't accomplishing that: four of the seven are primary sources that are not support for notability at all (the self-published websites of organizations she's been directly affiliated with, a Q&A "meet your city council candidates" interview in a community hyperlocal in which she's talking about herself in the first person), and even the three real media hits aren't really about her in any non-trivial way: one briefly namechecks her existence as a Filipina politician, one briefly quotes her giving soundbite on an issue, and one just tangentially verifies a fact about city policy while completely failing to name Dianne Martinez as having any connection to it at all, which means none of them count as WP:GNG-building coverage either.
In addition, "first member of a minority group to do this not otherwise notable thing in her own city" is still not an automatic inclusion freebie that would exempt her from having to be the subject of GNG-worthy coverage about her (as opposed to mentioning her name in the process of being about something else).
There's just nothing stated here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only is the place she was mayor of home to less than 13,000 people, it is less than 3 square miles in area, is smooshed between the much larger Oakland, and the somewhat larger Berkley, in the San Francisco Metro Area. It is by no measure a major or significant city. Our sourcing is no where near showing this person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Municipal politician from a small town (population approx. 12,000) does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 18:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat, and other commenters. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not because Emeryville is a small city, but the sources here say very little about her. Basically, her name appears in a single sentence in all of the ones I could access, or in a list of members. She is listed as a "notable person" in the article for Emeryville, California -- and what is notable is that she is Filipina-American. I'm not at all sure that this on its own makes her a notable person, but I can see that the local Filipino-American community sees this as important. I don't know what to do about that, but it's not enough to meet NPOL, unfortunately. Lamona (talk) 16:06, 6 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 23:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANN4HO[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passage of WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's possible to verify that they exist: the notability test is the reception of media coverage which verifies that they've accomplished something that would pass a notability criterion in WP:NMUSIC — but the notability claim on offer here is that she exists as a musician, and the references are entirely to primary source content on the self-published event calendars of venues (entirely in her own hometown) where she's performed, with absolutely no evidence of reliable source coverage about her in real media to verify that she's accomplished anything that would get her into an encyclopedia.
Also, this was moved from draftspace by its own creator, without any evidence that it was ever actually submitted for a proper WP:AFC review, but the state of the article doesn't suggest a compelling reason to just move it back into draftspace for improvement. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a very start of her career musician who is no where near being notable at present. She may get there at some point, but clearly not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this has been moved to draft space inappropriately. I have requested that this move be reverted. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it back. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 23:08, 10 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. and it does not appear one is forthcoming with two relists generating zero incremental input. No prejudice against a speedy renom if you believe it would get traction. Star Mississippi 03:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zobeda Khanom Chowdhury[edit]

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

~~The subject has no reason to be notable and sources do not prove otherwise.~~ Notability is not inherited from her son. Apart from a single source (M. R. Mahbub) we have no significant coverage of the subject even in Bengali. If Mahbub's claim that she was among the first Muslim women to join politics in Bangladesh were true (it isn't), such a scarcity of sources is not to be expected: Language Movement has attracted attention of thousands of scholars in S. Asia across the last few decades. Anyways, a single source and some name-drops cannot guarantee passage of WP:N. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not read Bengali but the statement that the "subject has no reason to be notable" is about as far from the lede as possible, which says a leading woman of the Bengali language movement and one of the pioneering women in Bangladeshi politics. TrangaBellam, do you think this statement is fabricated? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such subjective claims are of no value and not supported by scholarship. The body has a lot of objective details and I leave the judgement to you. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @AleatoryPonderings: I had edited an article drafted by TrangaBellam with good faith a couple of hours ago but they were not content with these edits and thus responded by criticising a number of my recent article translations from Bengali to English. This is very inappropriate behaviour. SalamAlayka (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm baffled by the nominator's WP:NOTINHERITED argument. The article text only mentions her son briefly and he doesn't even have his own article. There's no obvious attempt to coatrack notability here. pburka (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of the many arguments.

Overall, there were thousands of ML Women Cells each having their Muslim women office bearers, who partook in routine party bureaucracy and outreach including submitting memorandum etc and dissenting with higher ups. None of this is an exception including criticism by press. The acts engaged in by our subject do not seem significant enough to merit anything more than a footnote in the annals of Language Movement. There were many women with far-significant contributions.

And a profile over a single book by a single scholar arguing the subject to be some kind of revolutionary woman (minus the evidence) is not sufficient to pass notability guidelines either. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article says her son died in 1952 but according to this Obituary he died in 2008. Or is this a different son?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC) *Keep per this source.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutal- It is written by the same author, M. R. Mahbub.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a source analysis table would be really helpful here. The article makes claims about her notability that look good on the face of it, but I don't know if the groups she's associated with are notable either, and the nominator telling us they're "subjective claims" doesn't help the rest of us understand why. I can't read Bengali so I can't put one together effectively. I am concerned with the tone of the article, though, which doesn't strike me as WP:NPOV. (And what does "indecent" mean, anyway?) And I'm not sure what's going on in the "Political Activism" section. This looks like it's mostly about people who are not the article subject? I think this might be what the nominator's WP:NOTINHERITED argument might have been aiming at, though I agree with pburka that there's no apparent attempt to coatrack notability using her son. -- asilvering (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might need a subtle rewrite, but is notable.103.109.56.38 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving time for multiple WP:GNG passing sources to be presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:21, 3 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 merge to 9 Horses. Star Mississippi 03:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adhyâropa Records[edit]

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

This record label exists, though it mainly publishes people associated with it, but there is no reliable coverage of any depth of the company. Mvqr (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An obvious Merge target to 9 Horses. Chubbles (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as WP:ATD to 9 Horses as above, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 9 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. Consensus is clear that further incubation would be helpful. Star Mississippi 03:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nanthida Rakwong[edit]

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

As raised on the talk page, and despite the author's response there and User:Sj accepting it at AfC, none of the references cited in the article, nor any that I could identify, are third-party sources with in-depth coverage of the subject. The Times video is entirely presented by the subject, the few news pieces that mention her by name are only in passing, and the rest are about the organisation's activities and don't directly concern the subject. While her work may be admirable (depending on one's political views), the WP:GNG does not appear to be met. Paul_012 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC) – 02:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is established by multiple third-party sources with significant in-depth coverage. One of the key references mentioned already is an in-depth video interview of the subject by The Times [5], which is one of the UK's (and the world's) oldest and largest newspapers that goes through very strict media and journalistic editing criteria. The videos on The Times youtube channel are about leading figures in UK and world politics, current affairs and entertainment, and the subject, Nanthida Rakwong, has been assigned an entire feature video. It is also evident from watching the video that it is produced, presented and distributed by The Times on their official youtube channel. Another third-party source with in-depth coverage, in the references already, is a feature interview of the subject and a co-worker by The News Lens [6], which also describes the work in detail. Other news sources that name the subject do so with significant weight, including the interview section from Apple Daily, which the source reproduced both in video and in text [7]. As a note of clarification, the subject's work is notable and relevant in the fields of international human rights and justice, not only politics. It is also important to be aware that the major media outlets within Thailand are state- and military-controlled, thus go through heavy censorship when it comes to the topics of human rights and the monarchy. Additional context about this within Wikipedia can be found here Lèse-majesté in Thailand and here Censorship in Thailand. Recently, the body that regulates the Thai media "advised" journalists not to cover anything regarding criticism of the monarchy (incl. the demands to repel the lese majeste laws). All this makes it very hard for even the most notable critics of the monarchy to be more than "mentioned only in passing" in Thai sources. Please consider this as a reason to give more weight to the international references that do go in-depth. ThaiFactChecker (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- While The Times is generally a reliable source and it featuring a video of her does indicate some degree of media interest, the video only features her speaking for herself, so it cannot be considered independent of the subject, a requirement of the GNG. The same likely applies for the other sources used in the article, though I don't read Chinese so I can't say for certain regarding sources in the language. Censorship or not, Wikipedia's guidelines depend on the existence of reliable sources, so if it is indeed an issue it might be an unfortunate situation, but making an exception based on such claims wouldn't be in line with Wikipedia policy. In any case, local sources are not a requirement, and international sources would be fine on their own if they report on the subject in an independent manner. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Times videos are produced and edited by The Times. According to GNG Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline, Independent of the subject "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it" - this is clearly not produced by the subject. Moreover, The Times follows the press editors code of practice [8]; report subjects are thoroughly cross-examined by the journalist, as is evident here. The other articles, such as the Chinese ones, have an author or editor named, which also makes them independent of the subject. Wikipedia does have advice for censorship contexts such as Venezuela Wikipedia:WikiProject_Venezuela/Reliable_and_unreliable_sources, where state sources are unreliable, and therefore alternative sources are recommended. Similar considerations could be made for Thailand which is in the same category as Venezuela for press freedom (bad) according to Reporters Without Borders [9] - in particular for content related to the most censored topics such as republicanism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaiFactChecker (talk • contribs) 00:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess that's one possible interpretation of the guideline, but I don't think I've seen it regarded as accepted argument at AfD discussions. I'm open to it if others share the position. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - The main point here is right from the wording of the guideline itself, i.e. that independent of the subject means "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it", and this is work produced by The Times, not the subject. -- ThaiFactChecker (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is enough detail to make an argument for N. I don't think the [admirability] of the subject's work is relevant, but the relative difficulty of finding national sources in censored contexts is. Perhaps: a notability banner to encourage adding more evidence + detail (e.g.: who were the candidates mentioned? what came of the lawsuits + recent work / studies?), and a more detailed discussion on the talk page over a few months, would be a better place and tempo for this discussion than AfD. – SJ + 17:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not censored context issue. Her fellow (like Arnon Nampa) got high news coverage with over 100k hits [10] and those are quality hits with national newspaper, leading news sites. She is just not notable among her peers. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Arnon Nampa and the subject are not "fellows"/"peers": Arnon Nampa is pro-monarchy and wants to reform it, not abolish it - that is very different from Nanthida Rakwong who calls for abolishing the Thai monarchy and changing it into a republic (sources in article). Reform and abolition are treated differently in Thailand, although since a ruling in November 2021, Thai law was changed to consider reform as treason, too [11]. A more recent warning from Thailand's media regulator was that "the act of reporting in and of itself could be interpreted as an attempt to overthrow the country’s constitutional monarchy." [12]. Thailand's severe media censorship is very well documented both on the respective Wikipedia article and more recent analysis such as Reporters without Borders [13] and Freedom House [14]. In addition to previous points from User Sj and myself, search engine statistics should be avoided according to Wikipedia's invalid criteria for notability Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria and the quality of Thai national news is questionable considering such extreme censorship. To the contrary, The Times itself is one of the top circulating newspapers in the UK and the world, with a monthly reach of almost 16 million [15], and The News Lens a monthly reach of almost 14 million in the Chinese-speaking world [16]. -- ThaiFactChecker (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with User Sj on encouraging to add more detail and seeking more references over a few months rather than rushing straight into AfD. -- ThaiFactChecker (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article reads like a resume. The creator has provided WP:THREE sources above, but I find none of them convincing. She is acting as a spokesperson in the video piece with the Times; perhaps she is doing so on behalf of a notable group but that video does not suggest to me that she is personally notable. The second one is only a trivial mention of her, and the third one does not even mention her last name. The coverage does not meet GNG. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a resume; it would be unusual for a resume to contain criticism and lawsuits against a subject... The Times video piece is about the subject as an individual and her experience. Which part of the video makes you think that she acts as a spokesperson? The second one (The News Lens) covers her work in-depth in more than half of the article. How is that only a trivial mention? As for the the Apple Daily article + video, the subject is mentioned several times and also featured in the video. The content about the subject carries significant weight in the wider content. Although not very relevant, in Thai naming convention, the first name is the most important part, while the surname was introduced only very recently. Please also check the above notes regarding censorship in Thailand. ThaiFactChecker (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that current coverage does not suffice. There are arguments for why other parts of the bio might be hard to source, including national political work and being the head of her own firm, but they need independent sources indicating significance, which seem scarce in English. TFC: perhaps I was hasty in accepting; better perhaps to return this to draft status while you work on it. – SJ + 03:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
commeent need more trusted citation (comment by soon-blocked sock)
- Replying to an unsigned comment. The Times is part of Wikipedia's named Reliable/perennial sources according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources ThaiFactChecker (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Restatement with new detail due to relisting. Notability according to GNG is established by reliable sources independent of the subject, including The Times (one of the oldest and largest newspapers in the world that adheres to the press editors code of practice [17] and is included in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). More than half of The News Lens piece is about the subject's work, and Apple Daily covers her significantly in text and video. Comments arguing against the notability of the subject appear not to look at the sources in detail (e.g. production of the subject? subject being a spokesperson? there is no evidence for this), nor take into account the context of the topic (Censorship in Thailand, Lèse-majesté in Thailand). Republican content is censored in Thailand, a country which is in the same category for press freedom as Venezuela according to Reporters Without Borders [18]. Wikipedia's advice there includes taking into account alternative sources as state sources are unreliable Wikipedia:WikiProject_Venezuela/Reliable_and_unreliable_sources. The article being discussed uses both high standard international press and other independent sources. ThaiFactChecker (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Struck repeated bold "keep". Please don't make more than one !vote. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As Sj (who reviewed the article at AfC) suggested above, re-draftifying the article until the sourcing can be improved seems like a good compromise. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting to hear back from TFC, but will return to draft presently. I'd be glad to see the article again after improvement. NB: In general, when censorship is an issue, reliable sources in other countries commenting on that specific censorship can also be suitable sources - the Streisand effect in action. – SJ + 23:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 3 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. Please move sources discovered into the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse[edit]

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

Doe not meet GNG. One ref is the company website. The other is short local restaurant review (a Orange Coast Magazine directory-type listing that is published often). Searching finds social media, restaurant review sites, etc, all of which is routine for almost any restaurant. I found one newspaper article about a rodent infestation problem that is not in the article. MB 03:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MB 03:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MB 03:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MB 03:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - a WP:MILL restaurant with a single location, no particular claim of notability, and only local coverage. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One mention of them shut down by the health inspector and a few mentions of the owner in the LA times, I don't see much more. Oaktree b (talk)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Restaurant reviews:
  1. Hodgins, Paul (1998-01-03). "Hidden Treasure - Steak house gets snippy - Nixon resigned his tie without regret at this renowned canyon-country steak house". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.
    The 513-word restaurant review notes: "The Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse is one of those rustic roadhouses that, at first glance, looks nothing like a place where our 37th president would have felt comfortable. Tucked into a leafy, rural south-county byway near O'Neill Regional Park, the 29-year-old restaurant (born the year Dick was elected to the Oval Office) is the picture of homey unpretentiousness. ... Obviously, Dick didn't. A cherished 1979 photo, guarded by plexiglass on the left as you enter, shows Nixon losing his neckwear to the scissors _ that must have made the Secret Service guys jumpy _ and next to it is the offending tie, ..."
    The Orange County Register is a regional newspaper which means that the restaurant passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which says:
    The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
  2. Chao, Fifi (2005-07-04). "Legendary Haunts: Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse". Orange County Business Journal. Vol. 28, no. 27. pp. 28–29. ISSN 1051-7480. EBSCOhost 17640982.
    The 333-word restaurant review notes: "We have to thank the original owners who opened Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse 37 years ago. Steve and Dori Nordeck, the owners since 1987, have kept the fun tradition and the good, understandable food coming. This place is one of a kind. Live oak trees, huge ones, grow right through the roof of the restaurant. The wall and ceiling decorations are neckties cut from city dudes who didn't know the rules: come in with a tie and leave without the bottom two thirds. For all the fun of kicking back in casual clothes at this cozy, rustic place, the food is serious."
  3. Chao, Fifi (2004-07-05). "Summer in the Cities: Trabuco Oak Steakhouse". Orange County Business Journal. Vol. 27, no. 27. pp. 45–46. ISSN 1051-7480. EBSCOhost 13773882.
    The restaurant review notes: "Trabuco Oaks still is completely rustic with raw wood beams and studs showing off their might, albeit behind literally thousdands of neckties on display that have been cut from dudes who wandered in grossly overdressed for the occasion. And we must not forget to point out that the massive oak tree, arund which the restaurant was built, still grows through the roof, necessitating a larger roof opening every few years to accommodate it. ... Chef Mario Moreno started as a dishwasher here 15 years ago and stayed on, turning into a superb grill chef."
2. Significant coverage and passing mentions:
  1. Perry, Charles (2003-02-26). "Steak served with a legacy". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.
    The article provides 193 words of coverage about the restaurant. The article notes: "Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse is an oddity, maybe because it opened in the contrarian ‘60s (the year was 1968). ... the county's most venerable steakhouse is way up in the hills, and its decor is closer to Dogpatch than Las Vegas. This might have been the restaurant that started the cute custom of snipping the necktie off anybody who walks in wearing one. The back dining room is a morgue of martyred neckties, hanging from the rafters in their thousands like rumpled, bravely colorful stalactites, speaking mutely of the changing necktie styles of decades past."
  2. "Tie is prime cut at steakhouse". Richmond Times-Dispatch. 2007-07-08. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.
    The article notes: "Signed, framed jerseys are everywhere in restaurants, but there's a more impressive piece of sports memorabilia at the Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse in Orange County's Trabuco Canyon. It's a rustic place where they'll cut off your tie if you wear one, and thousands of those lopped-off accessories hang from the ceiling or are stapled to the walls."
  3. Epstein, Benjamin (1998-05-28). "Happy Trails--Until We Eat Again". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.
    The article notes: "For dinner, it’s hard to beat the Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse. Just inside is a bathtub full of plants and a display of barbed wire; farther along is a fascinating collection of ceramic Jim Beam whisky bottles. The restaurant has held fast to a no-tie policy for 30 years, which means there’s no holding fast enough to yours to keep it from joining the 7,500 other ties hanging from the rafters. [one more paragraph about the restaurant's offerings]"
  4. Hamm, Catharine (2019-03-17). "It's about the animals on a weekend escape to Orange County's canyon country". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.
    The article notes: "Lunch was a turkey sandwich eaten under an oak tree, so I felt no guilt about a steak dinner at Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse, which prides itself on its no-necktie policy. The cut-off remnants of neckwear have become part of the restaurant’s decor, including one from 1979 said to have belonged to former President Nixon. My 8-ounce sirloin ($26) went well with a skillet of hot button mushrooms, and Gary seemed happy with his 8-ounce filet ($36). Best steak we ever had? Not quite, but it was far more succulent than that turkey sandwich."
  5. Inge, Arline, ed. (2007) [1983]. A Marmac Guide to Los Angeles and Northern Orange County: 5th Edition. Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Company. p. 85. ISBN 978-1-58980-393-0. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse ... This quaint little hideaway in the country is the local choice for the best steaks around. Business cards and snipped ties from customers, including Richard Nixon, cover the walls along with funky signs and sayings. Its specialty is great-tasting beef. Dinner nightly."
  6. Quines, Bryan (2008-01-17). "Feel like you could eat a cow? Try these places". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.
    The article notes: "For a steak cooked the cowboy way, head to Trabuco Oaks Steak House ... The roadhouse serves steaks cooked over a true mesquite grill. No electric or gas, just fire and wood. Fancy clothes ain’t welcome here, city slicker, and employees will cut your tie off if you even try. Hundreds of ties adorn the walls, including Richard Nixon’s, displayed near the entrance. The big daddy on the menu is the Cowboy ($46.96), a 32-ounce aged top sirloin steak. The waitress warns that even medium cooked steaks will have some pink so order accordingly. For a side, try the hand-cut fries. They’re even better than In-N-Out’s spuds."
  7. Cuniff, Meghann M. (2018-06-29). "San Juan Capistrano mourns Steve Nordeck, 76, proprietor of Swallow's Inn and El Adobe". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.
    The article provides one sentence of coverage about the restaurant. The article notes about Steve Nordeck: "He for several years owned the Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse, a destination restaurant near where Moiso and Aguirre were developing Rancho Santa Margarita."
  8. "Unlikely Achievers in the Orange County Restaurant Scene". Orange Coast. 2018-04-19. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.
    The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject: "Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse Hefty, mesquite-grilled steaks in the county’s remaining wilderness, resisting change since 1968."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources Cunard provided above. I knew there were some reviews on the restaurant floating around out there but I'm not great at finding that stuff. My apologies for the poorly-sourced first rendition of the article. Sewageboy (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kudos to Cunard for the extensive research they provided for this discussion. Sewageboy (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats and Cunard's good work; let's work to get those sources in the article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources shared by Cunard establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 22:17, 6 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid deletion rationale has not been advanced. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Channel[edit]

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

This article passes as a article, but i think it should redirect to Wii Menu#Internet Channel TzarN64 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:03, 3 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. Geschichte (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1964 in Nagaland[edit]

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

Per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1963 in Nagaland and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 in New York City, I nominate this article, along with 57 other articles from deletion.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are no secondary reliable sources asserting the "[X year] in Nagaland" is a topic for scholarly research. It fail WP:GNG, and thus shoudl be deleted. As for the alternative of redirecting it to Timeline of Naga history, I am opposed to it. Vast majority of these lists are incomplete; there is nothing significant to merge and redirect to the main timeline article. Also, even "1970s/1980s/etc. in Nagaland" would not be notable. Let me add that these lot pages are not nominated due to them being incomplete, that is a secondary issue. The primnary issues here is lack of notability, and no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability.

The complete list of pages nominated for deletion are:

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per nom and related discussions. Honestly the pages in question could have been WP:PRODED rather than taking all of them to AfD in my opinion. If strong consensus is established I'd recommend a patrolling admin WP:SNOW delete these pages so this process isn't needlessly dragged out. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, @Qwaiiplayer: The reason why I did not PROD them is because in the previous discussion, there were three users !voting 'weak delete', so I though there is some room for more discussion and more clear consensus whether we need pages like this, classifying annual history of a geographical subdivision. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per emerging consensus that this content does not fit absent a particularly notable year. Not a BIAS issue as there's broad consensus these aren't notable no matter the city. Agree with nom, PROD likely would hve been challenged so this saves a step. Star Mississippi 20:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. indiscriminate collection of information. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Not enough content to justify separate articles. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but note that the prolific creator of these pages, User:The Anonymous Earthling, is currently creating pages for all of the districts listed in List of districts of Nagaland, such as Niuland district and these are essentially unsourced, or lean heavily on non-RS (Kohima district). Does anyone have the energy to look at these and perhaps engage with the editor to head off future cleanup? Lamona (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as indiscriminate list. AnM2002 (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and if the nominator would be kind, please go through other, similarly futile articles created by the editor who wrote these.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:01, 7 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 23:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Eresko[edit]

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

Advert, created by a SPA, no sign of notability Bash7oven (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of stuff about him, only one source mentioned in the article though. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 3 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Aziz Botta[edit]

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

Doesn't seem very notable. The sources provided are very low-quality, most of them making only passing mentions of him, and even I can't find any good sources for this article. I tried to search for his birth year on Google and I didn't find it; is he really so notable if we can't even find the birth year? As a side note, the author has created many drafts which have been declined due to notability issues. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page is made under stub, you can check the stub description, how can u put it on deletion, we are still improving this one. Help me out to improve this subject, thanks Growthsakup (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine and all, but again, if we (you and I) can't find sources that discuss him in detail and don't just have passing mentions of him, then is he really that notable? See WP:NOTABLE. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about the fact that you are still making this article, but rather that the subject might not be inherently notable. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 15:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 15:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 15:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 15:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it seems that the creator of the article, Growthsakup, has been using another account, User:Teamworksemc, to get the article kept (see contribs). It also appears that they have been using both their main account and IPs (27.63.10.186 and 27.63.21.208) and removing AfD tags, even though it says explicitly not to remove AfD tags. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are indeed low quality, couldn't find significant coverage to meet GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 04:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG through lack of WP:SIGCOV, I was also unable to identify any. BilledMammal (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't see the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG and I don't know of any SNG that he meets. Papaursa (talk) 20:55, 8 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. Already deleted in bundle with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horner Avenue. Snow applies here as well, we do not need to pile on new user. Star Mississippi 19:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lonsdale Road (Toronto)[edit]

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

Another road in Toronto with no indication of notability. Would PROD but I've already PRODed one and two others by the same creator are at AfD already. At this point I think a warning needs to be issued. casualdejekyll 15:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This road is part of ONTARIO HIGHWAY 11A, so it is REASONABLE to create an article about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiokipedia (talk • contribs) 15:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, a short 150 metre segment of Lonsdale formed part of the route of Ontario Highway 11A until 1953. Highway 11A is notable because it was a provincial highway, but this notability doesn't extend to individual streets that made up said highway. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, simple and JSTOR search returned no results (as in no reliable sources), fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOROAD (which is basically GNG anyways) Justi yaya 15:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 15:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 15:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and bundle with the other articles listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horner Avenue for my reasons stated there. This is a series of new articles about non-notable Toronto roads created by this new editor. After I started the bundled AfD, the editor started creating more similar articles. Casualdejekyll, feel free to add this page to my earlier bundled AfD if you want. Singularity42 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly honest, I actually don't know how to bundle AfDs, which is why I made a separate nom. casualdejekyll 16:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above and same discussion as the road article yesterday. Oaktree b (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This road fails WP:GEOROAD because it is not "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject." Cullen328 (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sourced evidence of notability. Fails WP:GEOROAD. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:GEOROAD. Not every single street in Toronto needs its own article. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a CSD, but I get what your frustration is. casualdejekyll 11:21, 4 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Afghanistan-related articles[edit]

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

Directly inspired by the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Sri Lanka–related articles—which in turn followed discussions about Afghanistan's neighbours India, Pakistan and China—this Afghanistan index is also woefully incomplete, even of the articles that exist about Afghanistan now. Being an uncontextual data dump, it is of little conceiveable use to readers. Geschichte (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per my comments on the linked AFD. Alphabetical lists that may simultanously be too big to navigate easily and too small to be comprehensive are not useful pages on an encyclopedia with a search bar, categories, and links from other articles, unlike a paper encylopedia where an index at the end serves a purpose. Reywas92^Talk 16:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per previous nominations before that. Ajf773 (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus. Country indices just cannot cover all that ground. Vox populi Wikipedia, vox dei. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Brazil-related articles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of China-related articles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of India-related articles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Pakistan-related articles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Romania-related articles, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Sri Lanka-related articles. Might want top revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Andhra Pradesh-related articles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Belgium-related articles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Denmark-related articles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Lebanon-related articles, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Malawi-related articles in a bulk AfD containing all the other country- and region-related indices. See also Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Index_of. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:20, 8 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. There's consensus not to keep this (in this form) but no consensus about a redirect. Sandstein 11:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Charismatic Church of Canada[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:NCHURCH, whether on the name given in the WP article or on the name given on the website ("Catholic Charismatic Renewal Services of Ontario"); I found nothing on this alleged group. The article is unsourced despite a 2011 request.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered in the Encyclopedia of American Religions. St Anselm (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Potential delete -- This appears to be another case of a local church, a splinter from a major denomination, purporting to be a denomionation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some scant mentions in GNews from 1979, early 1980s, in English language Regina and Montreal newspapers, proving they exist, but I've never heard of them. Not sure if they're still around. A search in French for "eglise catholique charismatique du canada" brings up business registration numbers, not too much else. Seems they incorporated in 1976 or so. Something in a Qc newspaper about Chemin Neuf Canada, seems to be an offshoot of this religious ideal, [19], but it was founded by another priest. We're going to need an entire rewrite/newly researched article at this point, to explore what happened with the group. Seems to be an offshoot of Vatican II reforms. I have no interest in writing it however. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Catholic charismatic renewal There is little to no coverage of this as a denomination. Sources are very sparse but they present a picture of a small group of individual parish churches that have, over the years, separated themselves from the Roman Catholic church over perceived liberalization of the RCC. They seem to share none of the markers of an actual denomination such as a unified doctrine or an organizational structure. The best AtD appears to be redirecting to the movement that they sort of share. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss possible redirect target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: there is no mention of this denomination at the target, so a redirect there would be unwise. Veverve (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve:, as I mentioned above, I see no indication that this is actually a denomination in any significant way. I do not think, therefore, that WP:RPURPOSE would recommend against such a redirect. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: I believe WP:R#DELETE n. 5 and the current practice of deleting redirects when they are not mentioned at the target at RfDs make it so that redirecting would be a bad idea. Veverve (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve:, that is not an absolute requirement. Please suggest a different target if you think this one is a poor choice. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:58, 3 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 23:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Murad Khan Kalhoro[edit]

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

Supposed chief of the Kalhora tribe from 1880 - 1925, which supposedly founded the Kalhora dynasty. The article has had no references since its creation 8 years ago, hence failing WP:V, while also being non-notable; failing WP:GNG. Search results bring up nothing close to a reliable source, which makes me think that this is a Hoax. If someone informs me of any reliable sources that report on this man, put it in the article and I shall pull this. Another thing to note: the Kalhora dynasty page does not correspond with this page - there is no mention of this man over there, fueling my suspicions. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks any sources. We really need to go to requiring that all articles have sources. I also think we need to start making all new articles go through the AfC process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 3 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. Source analysis refutes the only substantive keep vote. The other vote does not address The sources meeting GNG and is therefore insufficient to dispute the source analysis Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Mills Secondary School[edit]

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

The article has four references. All of which are either primary, extremely trivial, dead links, blog posts, or some combination of the four. I couldn't find anything about it in a WP:BEFORE either except a few extremely trivial name drops in school directories and an article about their sports team. None of which works for notability. Maybe someone can find references that do work for notability though. Otherwise, I think the article should be deleted. Adamant1 (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - School is the subject of multiple instances of significant coverage in the St. Kitts and Nevis press (i.e., national-level coverage), see, e.g., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Clear WP:GNG pass. FOARP (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference is extremely trivial, the second and third are blog posts, the forth is a statement from the school principle, the fifth is a blog post from the source as the other blog posts, the sixth is about their sports team and might work, but not on it's own, and the last reference is yet another blog post from the same source as the other ones. Not to mention it's about a couple of kids being wounded in a school yard. Which is extremely run of the mill. Wikipedia isn't a news source. So essentially we have one reference that is barely usable if at all and a bunch of WP:NOTNEWS articles from a blog that don't work for notability. Oh, and a statement from the principle that is primary and doesn't work for notability either. So in no way is this the subject of multiple instances of significant coverage or a "clear WP:GNG pass." The last reference in particular says literally nothing about the school except for name dropping it in the headline. So nothing is significant about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that is a "blog", it appears to be a WP:NEWSORG. Based on this article it does have an editorship structure and does issue corrections/apologies/retractions.

I also don't agree that coverage of the sports teams of CEMSS is trivial coverage, especially national-level coverage of multiple sports successes at the school. Sports education is clearly part of a school's remit and so coverage of sports is coverage of the school. CEMSS is one of only 6 high schools in St. Kitts and Nevis, which has no university, so it is not surprising that it (and its sports teams) should be treated as worth covering by the SKN press.

Searching the former name of the school also brings up references covering its 50th anniversary (e.g., 8 9) as well as a USAID report with coverage of the school. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs retract statements sometimes. That's not really what makes something a blog or not. Nor does someone retracting something once mean there's an "editorship structure." As far as what does make something a blog, according to WP:Blog "A blog (a truncation of "weblog") is a discussion or informational website published on the World Wide Web consisting of discrete, often informal diary-style text entries (posts). Posts are typically displayed in reverse chronological order, so that the most recent post appears first, at the top of the web page." Which literally describes www.sknvibes.com. If we can't go with how Wikipedia defines a blog to determine if something is one or not then I'm not really sure why we are doing this.

As far as the the article on the sports team goes, 99% of it is an interview with the coach and he doesn't say anything about the school in the interview. Just to pick a random quote from the interview, he says "The group of coaches I spoke about earlier, their friends offer support, if one athlete in particular is late for training or don’t want to train, their friends would remind them that they have training as well as the fans we got who would offer them support.” Where is the school being talked about at all in that quote? Interviews aren't usable for notability anyway even if it did have anything to do with the school. If you disagree, then make an article about the sports team if that's what most of the coverage is about. The sports team isn't the school though. We can't have a blank article except for a section on their track and field team. It's undue weight and that's not the topic of the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Blog" implies SKNVibes this is a self-published source. It clearly isn't since SKNVibes is an established company that e.g., sells advertising space and offers jobs-listings. Are you really using the fact that they published news stories in chronological order as a reason to call them a blog? Because literally every news website does that. Additionally, we can see reliable sources in the Caribbean region using them as a source (e.g., 10 11 ) That last source calls them a "news website", not a blog. Clearly a WP:NEWSORG. FOARP (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the website? Go to https://www.sknvibes.com/news/, notice the last word in the URL is "news", click on some of the "news articles", and you'll find that a lot of them are press releases, "messages" (whatever that is), or other "not actually news article" things like flight schedules. Now tell me which one of those, press releases, "messages", or flight schedules do you think are actually "news" and (or) not self published? Also you'll notice on that on the bottom of most or all of their "news articles" that they have the following disclaimer "This article was posted in its entirety as received by SKNVibes.com." Where in that statement does it say that there's any editorial control of the "news articles" they publish? It literally says they don't do any editing of the content they receive. Let alone can anyone take away from that there is any kind of "editorship structure" involved in it like you've said there is. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No such notice on their staff-reporter-provided articles, such as this one, this one, this one. ALL of the sources relied on above are from staff reporters. The very fact that they actively disclaim the ones that aren't (most of which come from SKNIS - the government media outlet) shows that they are doing their basic job as a media outlet. Of course there is an editorship structure if there is an editor-in-chief. We even have other sources talking about the "management" of SKNVibes over the CBI affair. FOARP (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS - look at the online profiles of some of the bylines in the SKNVibes articles, e.g., Jermine Abel, Stanford Conway has credits for Reuters photos/articles. Why do you think these guys who are obviously professional journalists are working for a "blog"? FOARP (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articles that are supposedly written by staff reporters aren't really though. Which is why the ones you linked to are littered with phrases like "That announcement was made by Minister of Education Jonel Powell", "According to Powell", "Statistics from the Ministry of Health", "Minister Powell noted that his Ministry believes", "The announcement came days after Desmond Haynes was appointed", "CWI, in a media statement, said the Guyanese appointment was confirmed" Their literally just reposting almost verbatim what other people tell them and content from other news outlets. I could care less if a "staff reporter" is the one creating the blog post. It's not their work, research, or anything else of theirs and they aren't claiming it is. They are extremely clear that their content is from other people and outlets. Including press releases.

Maybe some of the staff writers are professional journalists, but it doesn't mean all of them are or that the cut and pasting work they do for sknvibes.com is in that capacity or automatically up to the same standards of the work they did for Reuters. I'm not going to say just because someone wrote an article for Reuters that everything they write is exactly the same. Let alone that every outlet they write for must have the quality control and oversight that Reuters does. Obviously different blogs and news outlets have varying degrees of review and editorial control over the work they publish, and writers will write definitely depending on where their work is being published. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is very, very normal for reporters to quote officials, press-releases etc. in a story. That is just basic journalism. I don't even know why you're focused so much on trying to prove that this outlet (which is prominent enough to get into disputes with the government, has an editor-in-chief, staff reporters who work for other major news outlets, is quoted as a news outlet by other news outlets etc. etc.) is a "blog" when it is only one of about 4-5 sources here. Frankly I'm happy to leave this discussion here and see what other editors think. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but when it's 99% of the article and comes at the cost of the author doing actual journalism then that's an issue. Like WP:REPUTABLE says "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors." If something is a 99% word for word copy of what someone else is saying then it's not the "analysis, views, and opinions of a reliable authors" at that point. I'd be totally fine with SKNVibes if they did actual analysis, but that's clearly not what they are doing. Instead their they are just parroting what other people say and slapping their name on the byline. You can't even call it a source at that point. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThis High School provides a non-specialist education and so must adhere to the guideline requiring all universities and colleges providing mainstream education to satisfy the notability guidelines or GNG (per WP:NSCHOOL). WP:ORG guidelines require significant coverage which this college does not have. No independent significant coverage indicating notability. The coverage it has obtained is questionable and I am not satisfied of its reputability based on the discussion above. Hence also fails GNG and so is not fit for inclusion and ought be deleted.Such-change47 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I didn't want to do another relist, but while there's significant discussion there isn't consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After looking at the sources, it seems that while some of the language is certainly promotional, the factual evidence contained such as dates etc. is not, and can reliably be used. Ignore the fluff, include the substance. Discant X 09:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Secondary schools are very rarely notable, and to be covered they need significant coverage in reliable sources, which the sources cited above fall far short of. Sandstein 12:01, 11 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 2020 United States Senate election in Arkansas. No consensus for a change in normal practice Star Mississippi 03:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Harrington Jr[edit]

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

Still not notable as coverage is routine for campaigns. This has not changed since the last deletion discussion. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tartan357: My reasoning for not deleting this article, given the past deletion discussion, is that Harrington is also a candidate in the 2022 Arkansas gubernatorial election. However, if this still does not meet the criterion for notability, the article should be deleted. Joffejs (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That has no impact on notability one way or the other. What matters is not what a person has done, but how much they've been written about (see WP:BASIC). When it comes to unelected political candidates, there is always some coverage, and it usually fits under the umbrella of the election article. Consolidating that coverage in one place allows us to have higher-quality content. It is only when the candidate gets an unusual amount of attention that they should have their own article. I should note that I am a fan of Ricky (I went to one of his rallies and took the picture you used), and I appreciate what you're doing. You can add verified information about his campaigns to the election articles, which has already been done some at 2020 United States Senate election in Arkansas. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tartan357: I am a new user to Wikipedia, so I'll trust your judgment. I had just thought that what was notable was the 34% victory for a Senate candidate, but I definitely see your reasoning and have read through WP:BASIC and WP:NPOL now. I wasn't aiming to do this to promote him as a candidate, but he does seem like a great guy. I agree now that the article page has no use as of now. Cheers to the great photo! Joffejs (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Until he is elected as governor, he fails WP:POLITICIAN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Arkansas as a usual and appropriate outcome (see WP:POLOUTCOMES). --Enos733 (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd make an exception here. I think there's been enough attention. Our rule for this is too restrictive (It also gives unfair bias in coverage towards incumbents). DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in future elections — the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, but this features neither evidence that he has preexisting notability for other reasons nor a credible reason why he should get special treatment that most other candidates aren't getting. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day should he win, but nothing here is grounds for an article to already exist nine months in advance of the election. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We should make an exception here. The person who got the highest percentage of the vote and highest raw vote for the USA's largest third party in any senate race is notable. Capisred (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Arkansas gubernatorial election#Libertarian convention. WP:NPOL is clear that candidates do not have presumed notability, and there isn't enough significant independent coverage to grant notability through WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are some policy-based comments on why this should be an exception to normal redirect. Suggest further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Arkansas or 2022 Arkansas gubernatorial election#Libertarian convention (preferably the former, due to his vote total being an unusually high number for a third party candidate) per Enos733, Bearcat, and Qwaiiplayer. Sal2100 (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Arkansas per Sal2100's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:24, 10 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!} 06:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Alonso[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and both WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. The article was created by a single purpose account (Nonitamater), and despite recent changes, it is still heavily reliant on self-published sources, including Alonso's webpage (https://robertalonsopresenta.com) and YouTube.

He appears to be most notable for being the owner of the Daktari Ranch in Venezuela, which already has an article on its own Daktari Ranch affair; any notable content not included already there can be merged, and this article should be deleted per WP:ONEEVENT. Despite writing some books, his works don't appear to have independent coverage or received any award, and after running in a municipality election, he himself admits having received only three votes.

After the Early life section, the article proceeds to include a huge COATRACK of the 2004 and 2014 protests in Venezuela, the aforementioned Daktari Ranch affair and the presidential crisis. Besides that, the only mentions regarding Alonso are only statements and positions.

The only sources that I can find about him are mostly passing mentions. The rest of the reliable sources in the article are about the coatrack events previously mentioned.

It should also be mentioned that one of the images uploaded in Commons by the editor is titled "1993 Caballo apoloosa que murió en Daktari y tuvimos que descuartizarlo para sacarlo 3.jpg" (1993 apoloosa horse that died in Daktari and we had to quarter it to get it out 3.jpg), which suggests that it can have a close connection with the subject and a potential conflict of interest, something of which they have already been warned about in their talk page. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daktari Ranch

NoonIcarus (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After filing this AfD I noticed that this biography had already been deleted in 2011 after a PROD expired (Roberto Alonso) for the following reason: "This person is simply a political dissident who was the subject of a single article in a local alternative newsweekly, and thus he fails to meet the basic criteria set forth in WP:Notability (people)". Theses issues remain to this day. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Taking a cursory look, it doesn't appear the subject is notable enough. Tame (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NoonIcarus. There's not a ton outside of some passing mentions reference-wise. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:00, 9 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!} 06:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brocagh Emmetts GAC[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted through AfD a few years ago, so not eligible for prod. Recently recreated without a single ref from an independent reliable source. Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Going to have to agree with onel5969. Not notable enough for its own article space, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Spf121188 (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it covers SIGCOV I found here. --NeverTry4Me - TT page 10:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arunudoy, your link is literally just a google search. Can you point to reliable, independent, specific coverage that would signify legitimate coverage? I'm asking because if you have those, I would possibly strike my !vote. Spf121188 (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only sources available seem to be either primary sources or directory listings. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:08, 4 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!} 03:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D'Vontay Friga[edit]

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

Not close to being a notable basketball player. His YouTube career also has not generated significant coverage. Mvqr (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC) ok. please delete page. I apologize for the inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinod1227 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Delete He's got a brief mention in a short Sports Illustrated piece and a few mentions of when he got drafted, not much else. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 3 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!} 03:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yevaal[edit]

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

I could find only four sources, two of which were the same article republished, and the remaining sources just don't seem like enough to establish notability since they're regular run-of-the-mill articles about planned movies. It hasn't been released and fails both GNG and NFILM. AryKun (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AryKun (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NFF for unreleased films. Sources are only announcements. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:04, 3 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 close. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pallab Bhattacharyya (IPS)[edit]

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

Notability concerns have been expressed and creator has chosen to request testing at XfD rather than AfC which may have a slightly lower bar. Not fit for mainspace as is but position(s) may be sufficient to confer notability, though normally such positions will generate RS which are certainly not well leveraged into the article and not suitability wikilinked. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Between opening the Twinkle XfD and publishing the nomination the page was moved and this will need a procedural close. Please do not comment here. I thought I'd checked for this but got distracted. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Will be going though manual procedure at WP:AFDCLOSE. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:22, 3 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!} 06:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flame of Passion[edit]

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

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM, as only 1 source cited, that is no more than a catalog listing, and no others found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sourcing to show notability. Not every film ever produced commercially is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the nominator's statement about the catalog listing, the Wikipedia article links to this catalog listing^{Internet Archive} published by the American Film Institute (AFI). In discussing Flames of Passion, the AFI catalog listing cites from the 16 Oct 1915 Motion Picture News, the 16 Oct 1915 Moving Picture World, the 23 Oct 1915 Moving Picture World, the 5 Nov 1915 Var, the 18 Dec 1915 Motion Picture News, and the 3 Mar 1919 Wid's Daily. The "Source Citations" section has even more articles (14 in total). This is enough coverage to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline
Cunard (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Silverman, Sime (1915-11-05). "Flame of Passion". Variety. Vol. 40, no. 10. p. 22. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Internet Archive.
  The film review was published in 1915 so is in the public domain. The film review notes:
  The "Flame of Passion" feature film is in five reels, a Terris Film Co. picture, with Tom Terris the director, scenario writer and principal player of it. Next to Mr. Terris, in point of important acting, is Elaine Terris, a voluptuous, handsome woman, who admirably suits the character assigned her, that of a southern enchantress, coached by her lover to entangle a northern and lead him to his ruin, with death preferred after that for the young man from the north. Most of the scenes were taken in Jamaica, and some remarkably pretty landscapes are shown. In its exterior views the "Flame of Passion" appears to be a travelog of the Island of Jamaica, but as these scenes are neatly interwoven into the story, they become merely backgrounds for the players or the action. The tale is dramatic, of the northerner in love with a girl of his own city, going somewhat wild and leaving for Jamaica, where he had been left a fortune, which greatly angered the dead man's friend down there, the latter being willed the estate if the northerner died. It is to accomplish that death by inciting a passion in the northerner for his mistress that the Jamaican connived with his girl to ensnare the northern fellow. Jealousy spoiled the plan, however, as it had about reached its fulfillment. The northerner's sweetheart also went to Jamaica to save him, when the villain fell in love with and kidnapped her, his unfaithfulness to his "girl" bringing about a battle between them in which the girl was killed. Her death released the northerner from her thrall, he rescuing his sweetheart, and they returning home ot be wed. The progress of passion is somewhat vividly brought out through the blandishments and languidness of the adventuress, also the susceptibility of the northern young man, but Miss Terris is the mould of a woman in this feature that almost anyone might be excused for ardently admiring. Some of the scenes are extremeley well set. One was a fire at sea, Mr. Terris utilizing the boat and crew he traveled with to Jamaica, to neatly work out his make-believe, even to the launching of a life boat. A couple of "dreams" had fantastic ideas brought out in film form, and the mob scenes of colored people in Jamaica attending services of "The Magic Man" or Voodoo were extraordinarily well manipulated, considering the calibre of "super" the director had to handle. The minor faults of the film are not big enough to dwell upon. Renzi de Cordova looked the role of the villain and played it as well. Marguerite Hanley was the sweetheart, with little to do. John G. Haas attended to the photography. He ofttimes did daring work, such as catching the principals climbing over the rapids at a great heighth, also going down the rapids with them on low flat boats. The "Flame of Passion," as a five-reel release, has enough in it to hold, and can fit on a program. Mr. Terris took sufficient care of each department he was concerned in to guarantee that. His was very capable work throughout.
2. Langman, Larry (1998). American Film Cycles: The Silent Era. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. p. 349. ISBN 0-313-30657-5. ISSN 0742-6933. Retrieved 2022-01-30.
  The book notes: "Some early vampire dramas focused more on the element of greed than on lust, making the work more of a crime film. Villainous Renzi de Cordova plots with Southern adventuress Elaine Terriss to ruin a Northerner in Tom Terriss's romantic drama, Flame of Passion (1915), set chiefly on the island of Jamaica. Tom Terriss, the intended victim, has inherited an estate in Jamaica and journeys there to settle business matters. Cordova, who is next in line to inherit the property in the event of Terriss's death, want to see his rival's destruction. Terriss immediately falls for the charms of the adventuress. Meanwhile his fiancée, Marguerite Hanley, hears about his affair and joins him in Jamaica to rescue him from the vampire's clutches. Cordova's scheme backfires when he becomes infatuated with the fiancée and kidnaps her for his own lust. His jealous lover intervenes and a struggle between them ends in the vampire's death. Terriss, now freed of the adventuress's hold on him, rescues his fiancée and they both leave for home to marry.
3. "At the Star". Sioux City Journal. 1917-03-18. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article was published in 1917 so is in the public domain. The article notes: "The "Flame of Passion" will be shown today at the Star. William Lanyon, a West Indian planter, dies and leaves all of his estate to his nephew, Dick Lorient, a New York society rounder, who is engaged to be married to his cousin, Dulcie Lanyon. Dick leaves to inspect his property, and John Stark, the overseer, to whom the estate has been left in the event of Dick's death, conspires to gain possession of the property. In Jamaica, Dick meets the "Woman," and in the flame of passion, passes through rushing waters and fires of hell. How he escapes the siren's deadly fascination and the villainous scheming of Stark is depicted."
4. "Columbia". Dayton Daily News. 1915-10-16. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article was published in 1915 so is in the public domain. The article notes: "Mr. Tom Terrlss, recently seen at the Columbia In "The Pursuing Shallow," will he presented tomorrow and Monday at the Columbia in his latest and greatest success, "Flame of Passion," in five acts. The popularity attained by Mr. Terriss through his wonderful acting in the pictures that he has thus far been seen in at the Columbia, is a sufficient guarantee of crowded houses when he is presented in this, his latest picture. The synopsis of "Flame of Passion" follows: William Lanyon, a West Indian planter, dies and leaves all of his estate to his nephew, Dick Lorient, a New York society rounder, who Is en-gaged to be married to his cousin, Dulcie Lanyon. Dick leaves to inspect his property and John Stark, the overseer, to whom the estate has been been left in the event of Dick's death, conspires to gain possession of the property. In Jamaica Dick meets the "Woman," and in the Flame of Passion passes through rushing waters and fires of hell. How he escapes the siren's deadly fascination and the villainous scheming of Stark Is depicted herein"
5. "Flame of Passion barred". Billboard. Vol. 27, no. 45. 1915-11-06. p. 54. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Internet Archive.
  The article was published in 1915 so is in the public domain. The article notes:
  
  Flame of Passion Barred
  New York, Oct. 29—The Flame of Passion, the first of the Terriss Film Corporation feature motion pictures taken in the superb surroundings of the West Indies Islands, has been barred by the censors of Pennsylvania, on the ground that they are immoral. Since these films were passed by the National Board of Censors and the New York authorities, and since there is nothing in them to compare with the daring exhibited in the numerous vampire films heretofore readily passed by the Pennsylvanians, Terriss is of the impression that perhaps the title offended the critics. He is, however, going to fight the decision in the courts, as he has these films extensively booked through the Keystone State and will suffer considerable loss should the showing be canceled.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Flame of Passion to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view. Silent films are mainly notable due to contemporary sources and academic coverage that is offline, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Silent films are historical artifacts, and saving this would be nice, but the present tiny entry looks like a catalog. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion / agreement as to whether sources found justify having a standalone article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found, should be added to the article as well. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found and mentioned above. This is notable enough to keep. Also add the above mentioned references to the article. ThePremiumBoy (talk) 07:28, 7 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 11:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohazzabul Lughat India[edit]

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

This might be a nice encyclopedia for sure but there exists hardly any coverage. I was able to locate one Urdu article on Adbi Miras by Mahzar Raza entitled Lughat-nigari ke chand Masail aur Muhazzabul Lughat, (Some issues pertaining to lexicography and the Muhazzabul Lughat) but I hesitate calling Adbi Miras a reliable source. This article has remained unsourced/unexpanded since last ten years and there aren't any available sources that could help it remain here. Comments! ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 10:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 10:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Gazal world (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reference works are not inherently notable, they need to meet GNG (WP:NBOOK, etc.). There is no evidence this one does so, although sources may exist in non-English (and non-Latin scripts), perhaps. Ping me on the off chance such coverage is found. PS. No interwiki to Urdu Wikipedia is a red flag. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: incorrectly listed under Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. A real-world encyclopedia can hardly be fictional. Pilaz (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Pilaz, I've removed it. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 04:20, 10 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 11:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Moule[edit]

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

Barely scrapes past WP:NFOOTY with one substitute appearance in a fully professional league, but can't find any evidence of him playing football at any level at all otherwise. Absolutely no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jellyman (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only one sub and per the article " It is unknown what happened to Moule after this." Lacks significant coverage.--Mvqr (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Squeaks past NFOOTY but clearly fails GNG. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or redirect to 1994–95 Dundee United F.C. season. Giant Snowman 18:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He meets NFootball (just), but lacks notability. I recall he got a bit of coverage at the time as a young player making his debut for Dundee United in the top flight. However he never appeared for the first team again (not even the following season in the Challenge Cup when several other young players made one or two appearances). There seems to be an Andy Moule who played in the Juniors for Culter F.C. later in the 1990s, but I have no idea if it is the same individual and in any case would not help make a case for him being notable. I think this is a fairly clear cut case if we are going to avoid having every footballer who played for a few minutes in a top division game having an article. Dunarc (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons given above. I am not sure if he is a plausible enough search term to require a redirect either. RobinCarmody (talk) 14:02, 8 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 13:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Nine Lives of Christmas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No more notable now than it was when it was redirected a year ago. The WP:BEFORE I did then showed no RSes and at least this recreated article has one. The others are either discussions of a book (I did not read them to determine if the book was the basis of the film or written after it) or blogs, or lists. Fails notability criteria. I have no objections to restoring the redirect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I need to do more research, but it's probably notable. It performed exceptionally well ratings-wise, which gives off the impression that there is likely coverage. The article can also serve as a landing page for coverage of the sequel as well, most likely. However before I make any actual judgement I want to find better sourcing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It turns up in New York Times article and earns a paragraph. Also hits in NPR, deadline, snopes.com and many others...Seems to have enough traction for a Hallmark Film to be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There was an article in NYT? Not in the article. Not that see. Do you mean the passing mentions in https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/movies/netflix-hallmark-christmas.html or https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/arts/television/christmas-movies-fit-for-the-small-screen.html ? That's not WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added better sourcing to the article and did some general cleanup. It's not super solid, but it's enough to justify a keep, particularly as it can serve double duty by being a landing page for the sequel as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for removing some of the cruft, but the sources are still passing mentions or unreliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, at this point it's up to the closing admin. I'd also like to note to the closing admin that I was previously one of the people who argued for a delete in the last AfD. The search deities must have been kinder on this film this time around, while I was looking for sources. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- as it currently stands, this seem sufficient to indicate notability. Some Hallmark movies indeed don't get any media coverage, but that is not the case with this one. matt91486 (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OSE. If there are other Hallmark movies that need to have their articles deleted, we can arrange for that. The sources do not help the article meet [[:WP:GNG]. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how OSE is applicable here. I was very clearly differentiating this piece from the various Hallmark movie articles that have gone through AFD in the past several months. And clearly we disagree on these sources being applicable for meeting the GNG. matt91486 (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is good enough for WP:GNG as there has been enough independent coverage. Maybe not as in-depth as the nominator would like, but that's the purpose of these discussions, to offer differing sides and let an admin make the ultimate decision. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:47, 4 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!} 06:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TechRaptor[edit]

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

This article doesnt show the notability of the site. Some sources are from the website and reads like a promotional for it. GamerPro64 05:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 05:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 05:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 05:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG and the article was created without any regard for notability. Largely primary sourced. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The publication itself is not the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 16:45, 5 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. or really, Keep/Merge as there is emerging consensus that this could be included within Sarasota's district or Booker herself especially with the added information from Cunard et al. What there isn't is consensus to delete any of this content, and where it should live can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 03:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Amending for clarity, emphasis on the could. I leave further discussion on whether it happens and where to interested editors. Star Mississippi 15:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emma E. Booker Elementary School[edit]

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

Should be merged into Sarasota, Florida as we do for other schools. It doesn't appear that the school is independently notable beyond the events of 9/11. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Articles not related to President George W. Bush being at the school when he made his first public comments about the September 11 attacks:
  1. Harger, Cindy (1993-02-24). "Budget cuts could kill modified school". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.
    The article notes: "Emma E. Booker Elementary School might have the county's first 11-month curriculum this fall, but state budget cuts could kill the plan. Since September, Booker Elementary School officials, staff and parents have brainstormed a plan to add 24 days to the school calendar and to spread summer vacation time throughout the year into shorter, more frequent breaks."
  2. McKinnon, Ryan (2019-04-01). "Booker students get fired up for state testing". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.
    The article notes: "Cheers from a a screaming throng of students and a steady stream of pump-up music could be heard from the parking lot of Emma E. Booker Elementary School Monday afternoon. ... It was the third, fourth and fifth graders, who will begin taking state tests on Tuesday, which were the object of all the commotion. With months of preparation and practice behind them, Tuesday is game day for testing, and Booker Elementary did what you do before a big game: They held a raucous pep rally."
  3. Frederick, Lisa (2010-11-23). "School provides a fun time to families". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.
    The article notes: "Students showed off their scientific minds while spending quality family time at Emma E. Booker Elementary School as part of the school's 10th annual Family Fun Night."
  4. Reiter, Keramet A. (2000-06-16). "Booker benefits from longer year". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.
    The article notes: "Students at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota go to school 196 days a year, instead of 180. The extra 16 days of class mean that the school's 700 students have a scant six weeks of summer; they will return July 31. But neither students nor faculty seem to mind."
  5. Webb, Shelby (2015-05-01). "Live: LeVar Burton in Sarasota". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.
    The article notes: "Kafale Rivers could feel his knees shaking when he walked into Emma E. Booker Elementary's media center. ... Despite his preparation, Kafale, 11, was sheepish when he met actor and early learning advocate LeVar Burton."
  6. Nagata, Kazuaki (2007-06-10). "Young authors honored at Booker". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.
    The article notes: "Twenty-four young authors from second through fifth grade showed off their creativity and were honored May 10 at Emma E. Booker Elementary School."
  7. Harger, Cindy (1992-11-13). "Enthusiasm rising for year-round school". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.
    The article notes: "Parents, teachers and administrators have high hopes that Emma E. Booker Elementary School will be the district's first year-round school."
  8. Gilpin, Francis (1990-12-19). "Parents question discipline - Slap results in teacher transfer". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.
    The article notes: "Two parents question the accuracy of information issued Tuesday by Sarasota County school officials about alleged mistreatment of two children at the Emma E. Booker Elementary School last week."
  9. Gilpin, Francis (1990-11-13). "Teacher discipline concerns leaders". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.
    The article notes: "Sarasota County school officials are under pressure from black activists for the second time in a week to reverse a decision at their new Emma E. Booker Elementary School."
  10. Gilpin, Francis (1990-11-10). "Blacks say school color flap dilutes history". The Tampa Times. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.
    The article notes: "The white principal and PTA president at the new Emma E. Booker Elementary haven't been true to their school, a group of black parents and activists say."
  11. Allen-Jones, Allen (2005-08-12). "Booker literacy project aims to improve kids' reading scores". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.
    The article notes: "Students at Emma E. Booker Elementary School have tested strong in math and writing on the FCAT exam, but weak in their reading skills."
2. Articles about President George W. Bush being at the school when he made his first public comments about the September 11 attacks:
  1. Roland, James (2002-09-12). "Sarasota elementary school marks place in history". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.
    The article notes: "More than 80 percent of its students are on free or reduced lunches and Booker has earned a C grade from the state for the last few years. Yet it was at this "average" school populated with many children from struggling families that President Bush arrived on Sept. 11, 2001, to talk about his education initiative, "No Child Left Behind." And it was here, surrounded by students and teachers, where Bush first learned that America was under attack by terrorists. It was from a microphone at Booker that the world first heard Bush call for peace."
  2. Babiarz, Liz (2006-09-12). "Bush addresses students". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.
    The article notes: "President George W. Bush told students at Emma E. Booker Elementary School that he will always remember being with them during the Sept. 11 attacks five years ago. ... He recalled sitting in Room 301 at the school, listening to Sandra Daniels' second-grade class read from "The Pet Goat" when his former chief of staff whispered to him, "America is under attack" after the second plane hit the World Trade Center."
  3. Binette, Chad (2002-05-31). "Booker creates 9/11 memorial exhibit". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.
    The article notes: "Emma E. Booker Elementary School students recall getting out of bed early and going through metal detectors. They were eager to hear President Bush talk about reading and to shake his hand. ... Booker Elementary is creating an exhibit with memories of that fateful day. The display in the office features two scrapbooks by students, pictures taken by White House photographers and a thank-you note to the school from President Bush."
  4. Barker, Tim (2006-08-24). "Bush visit on 9-11 changed their lives". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-02-03.
    The article notes: "Wednesday was a day for several of those students, along with their former teacher, to get back together at Emma E. Booker Elementary School and talk about the upcoming fifth anniversary of the terror attacks. It was part media circus, part catharsis, as the group sat in front of cameras and talked with reporters about that September morning and how it changed their lives."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Emma E. Booker Elementary School to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) says:
The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
As a non-profit educational institution, Emma E. Booker Elementary School passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools. Emma E. Booker Elementary School has received substantial sustained coverage in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and The Tampa Tribune.
Cunard (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any "significant coverage" of the school from the references Cunard provided. Most (or all) of them are local, trivial, and WP:MILL coverage. The 8 articles about George Bush being there in particular are clearly because of and about George Bush, not the school. Literally any school George Bush went to and made statements about 911 at would have been covered in the news. Just like every ice cream shop in America that Joe Biden buys an ice cream cone from gets mentioned in news articles, Etc. Etc. The places don't matter, the person who is visiting them does. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emma E. Booker Elementary School is a non-profit educational institution which is required to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. There is no requirement for the references to be non-local or non-WP:MILL but it has received plenty of coverage that is non-WP:MILL. Emma E. Booker Elementary School has received significant coverage in the regional newspaper The Tampa Tribune about its 11-month curriculum. In addition to the George W. Bush coverage, the school has received significant coverage about the plans for it to become "the district's first year-round school", students doing state testing, and events it puts on. That this school has received sustained significant coverage over several decades strongly establishes it is notable.
Cunard (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the non-local coverage part of what I said, there still isn't significant, in-depth coverage in multiple sources. One reason as I'm sure you know is that multiple stories from a single outlet only counts as one reference. So the fact that The Tampa Tribune did 15 news stories about it doesn't really matter, since it's only a single reference. Outside of that though from what I can tell the stories are not significant coverage anyway. Like the first one is about how they might have the county's first 11-month curriculum, but then maybe not because of state budget cuts. Beyond just being purely based on speculation most of it is about the state budget issues. Not the school. To pick one more, there's "Teacher discipline concerns leaders". Which is literally just about an assistant superintendent deciding if they are going to punish a white school teacher for making a derisive remark about a black pupil. Again, the article is purely based on speculation and doesn't discuss the school directly or in-depth. So right there is two news articles that don't even discuss the school except in an extremely superficial way and based purely on speculation. "Blacks say school color flap dilutes history" is much of the same. As well as being an interview. "Booker benefits from longer year" starts out by interviewing a third grader and goes on to discuss the school adding 16 days to the semester, "Jamese Bryant, a fifth-grader, said he likes being in school because he gets to spend time with his friends. "I want short summers," Jamese said." Maybe there is no non-WP:MILL requirement, but I'm sure you would agree that Jamese wanting shorter summers isn't really in-depth, significant, direct coverage of the school. Let alone notability providing content for an article about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant coverage in two publications: the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and The Tampa Tribune.

I do not agree that the 1993 article "Budget cuts could kill modified school" is not primarily about the school. Of the 485-word article, only 99 words are not directly about the school. The article discusses the plan to extend the school year and how it would affect the students. The 2000 article "Booker benefits from longer year" from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune was published after the plan to extend the school year was implemented. It contains extensive discussion of the school:

Students at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota go to school 196 days a year, instead of 180. The extra 16 days of class mean that the school's 700 students have a scant six weeks of summer; they will return July 31. But neither students nor faculty seem to mind.
...
In the spring and the fall, just before seasonal vacations, teachers spend eight days on intensive, theme-based curricula focusing on such topics as medieval times, the ocean or recycling. The sessions give students a reprieve from the traditional reading, writing and math classes, offering field trips and fun projects.
...
The school has had a 196-day school year for seven years, but the calendar has been emphasized more recently because of Emma E.'s difficulty in raising test scores to average levels. This year the school has radically changed its curriculum to focus on reading and writing in every subject and to introduce skills necessary for tests as early as possible.

The 1990 article "Blacks say school color flap dilutes history" also provides extensive coverage of the school:

Freshly embossed Bulldog T-shirts, which cost the PTA its entire $1,200 treasury, have been discarded -- in belated recognition by the school's new administration of Booker's rich legacy as a center of education and progress for Sarasota's black community. The principal at the new Booker, which inherited the title of a longtime Newtown grammar school named for Sarasota County's first black principal, said he didn't realize the switch would strike such a raw nerve.
...
Enrollment at the new Booker is more than four times that of the old 260-pupil Booker, which closed as a grammar school last June and became part of the Booker Middle and High school complex on Orange Avenue North. Many of the new Booker pupils are white and live in north Sarasota County subdivisions between Interstate 75 and Sarasota Bay, said Fitz-Harris. The new Booker has a 55 percent black student body.
...
The school's recently formed and predominantly white PTA decided in October to conduct a vote among pupils to determine if they wanted to keep the purple- and-gold Tornado of the old Booker -- or to choose a new mascot and school colors from a list provided.

The sources discuss the school's history, its curriculum, its mascot and school colors, its school year length, and its controversies. There is more than enough information to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it comes down to how you define the word "significant." For me it means "sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention." Which I wouldn't consider things like school colors, how many weeks their semesters are, or some teacher "maybe" getting reprimanded for calling a student a guerilla. All schools have have "controversies", school colors, and school semesters go for a particular amount of time with literally every school. So there's nothing "important or worthy of attention" about any of that. Going by some of the things you've mentioned in this other AfDs though it seems like you have zero bar on the lower end for what qualifies as significant coverage and your definition of "significant" is literally anything. Like there could be a trivial local news story about someone graffitiing a penis on a school bathroom wall and you'd be arguing with me about why that is an important thing, something we should all be paying attention, and is therefore worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia and proves the school is notable. You might as well throw out the whole concept of significant coverage at that point, let alone notability. Even if you disagree though, WP:NOTDIRECTORY is clear that Wikipedia is not a "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit." Things like school color, mascot, and basic historical information like what year the school was founded, are the epitome of simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Especially when it comes to Elementary Schools. I'm sure you'd have some convoluted reason why something that's literally just "the schools colors are green and blue" has contextual information and encyclopedic merit though, but again at that point you might as well just say to hell with significant coverage and notability as concepts in the first. Personally I think a better route would be for you to admit you have zero or almost non-existing standards, me to say I have some, and for us to not get in these discussions anymore. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools do not define "significant" as meaning "sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention". As defined in Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, "significant coverage" means:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

Discussion about a school's history, its curriculum, its mascot and school colors, its school year length, and its controversies "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" so the school does meet the guideline. The coverage in these sources is not about "someone graffitiing a penis on a school bathroom wall" which by itself would not establish notability. The coverage about the school colors is about a very serious topic: It involves race in the United States and what activists say is the "purg[ing] [from] the school of its historical identity":

Principal Brian Fitz-Harris canceled the display when blacks protested a decision to change the purple-and-gold Booker Tornado to a red-and-black Bulldog after more than 50 years.
Freshly embossed Bulldog T-shirts, which cost the PTA its entire $1,200 treasury, have been discarded -- in belated recognition by the school's new administration of Booker's rich legacy as a center of education and progress for Sarasota's black community. ... But black activist Ed James II said the switch was intended as a first step by Fitz-Harris and PTA President Susan Rogers to purge the school of its historical identity.

Cunard (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I ever said that for something to be non-trivial it has to be the main topic of the source material? Obviously significant coverage is beyond a trivial mention and below the subject being the main topic of the article, but it's ridiculous to act like "Emma E. Booker Elementary School's mascot is a ferret" is a automatically significant coverage "because it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" or whatever. As far as the thing about the "activists", I think that it might be worth mentioning as a part of a broader article on racial discrimination in the school system, but it would be undue weight if that's solely what the article is based on. Not to mention probably create an attack article. It doesn't do the subject or readers of Wikipedia any just to have an article that is just about how some teachers of the school said some borderline racist crap. Maybe if it could be shown to be a broader, systemic issue, but there's zero evidence that is the case. Otherwise, we are just slandering a single teacher for saying something stupid and like the school supports that type of behavior when they don't. Outside of that I don't really care about an "activists" opinion, whatever that means. There is no clause in the notability guidelines that something is notable if there's a controversy involving it and "activists" aren't experts in anything. So their opinions are less then worthless, at least as far as this process goes. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that happening to be the school that Bush was at on 9/11 isn't enough to define its significance. What *does* surprise me, though, is that there is no article for Emma E. Booker herself. The school, a normal elementary school as far as I can tell, is unremarkable but Booker herself has an interesting story. The first paragraph of this article is about her, and I have just added her to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, especially since this is Black History Month. Lamona (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks. Having an article for Emma E. Booker is a good idea. Perhaps we can just mention the school there if one gets created before the AfD is closed. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is there's a Booker High School and a Booker Middle School - all within Newtown. There is a definite article to be made with Emma E. Booker here. There's also a lot of context here with segregation and school integration with these schools for the Sarasota metropolitan area. As I mentioned below, people have held onto the idea that this school is known on a national level because of Bush and 9/11. – The Grid (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO you could maybe argue that the topic of segregation and school integration in Florida is a notable topic that an article on could include a mention of these schools in, I don't think that means these specific schools are notable on their own though. Especially not if the articles are based purely on the segregation issue. Outside of that I'd be interested to know which people have held onto the idea that this school is known on a national level because of Bush and 9/11 and how them holding onto that "idea" equates to notability.

The idea that the school is known nationally because of Bush and 9/11 is laughable anyway. I bet most people off the street can't tell you what school Bush discussed 9/11 at. Even people from Florida. It's an extremely obscure fact that literally no one cares about or remembers at this point. Probably not even a good percentage of people in Newtown. Honestly, the same goes for 9/11 in general. I was in a college class a few years ago and a good number of the students in the class didn't even know what 9/11 was when the teacher brought it up. So I doubt most people know about this school in relation to it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you are saying to a degree but Sarasota County seems central to some of events leading up to 9/11. Two of the hijackers did their training in Venice at Huffman Aviation. Obviously, the focus of any article shouldn't be a coatrack for another event. I see the elementary school article to at least have improvements on notability. – The Grid (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hhhmmm, I wasn't aware that two of the high jackers had trained in the area. It's an interesting side fact, but as far as I know George Bush being at the school that day was pre-planned and had nothing to do with the high jackers. He didn't even know about the World Trade Centers being attacked until he was already there. So I doubt the visit had anything to do with the high jackers or anything related to 9/11. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's sufficient information from what Cunard provided and in the article. I'm surprised this is being argued because people are getting hung up on thinking it's only known due to 9/11. Also,WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. – The Grid (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- all of the evidence provided that this school is independently notable would support articles on other run-of-the-mill elementary schools, which we don't do. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Schooloutcomes suggests we should delete this article, full stop. It is an elemntary school. That it gets mentioned in a local article about children about to take state tests, that the President of the US happened to choose to make a visit here, which would have gotten virtually no coverage except for unrelated events that happened while the president was at this location, and a few other routine coverage examples do not make this institution notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first point is Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally the case in North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body).

Where are you getting the suggestion they get deleted? – The Grid (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you not consider merging the article a form of deletion? The point is that this article page should not exist. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not, a merge is an alternative to deletion. Your point has really not been expanded since the start of the AfD and please note you suggested a merge versus deletion. – The Grid (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the sources shared by Cuanrd. WP:MILL is just an essay and can easily be countered by WP:NOTPAPER. Passes WP:GNG. I don't think merging the content here into the already lengthy Sarasota, Florida article would benefit our readers. Better to keep it easily to find and read on a seperate article. NemesisAT (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we had to merge the content or a possible ATD, Sarasota County Public Schools is probably the better target but the current article is a list of schools. – The Grid (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fundamentally, the subject meets WP:GNG. There are many boring articles on Wikipedia that I don't like! Suriname0 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:GNG and common sense. If the school that George Bush was at during the September 11 attacks, which received lots of international attention, doesn't confer notability, what can? Discant X 08:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added one more source, which I don't believe was in Cunard's list. There is enough coverage outside of Bush and the September 11 attacks that can give the school notability. This article has better sourcing and notability than so many Wikipedia articles that it's almost laughable that it was brought to AFD. Discant X 09:00, 10 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. Anyone interested in a draftspace copy may contact me on my talk page, and I will provide one in the understanding that clearer evidence of notability will be required before recreation in mainspace. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project K (film)[edit]

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

This film has not had a notable production and isn't planned for release until 2023. Should be deleted as this is WP:TOOSOON DonaldD23 talk to me 02:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify May not meet NFF yet but might be notable in the future as the film is still early stages of production. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TOOSOON.TH1980 (talk) 02:39, 6 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 03:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Polit[edit]

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

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. I can't find any ~~reliable~~ sources for this person beyond their personal website. The author of this article created one article Grace Polit WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, http://www.grace-polit.org/i-exhibitions.htm isn't exactly promising. She last exhibited at Mucki's Restaurant in El Tingo before open her own gallery in Cumbaya. 13:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete No sources in Google, Gnews, Jstor or GScholar. Ran the name through ULAN, nothing turns up either. Might be more in Spanish sources though. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is missing evidence for GNG in both Colombian searches and English. theres basically nothing beside her websites. but as someone mentioned before there might be sources in Spanish. Amoeba69th (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG, no work in wikinotable gallery/museum collections, part of significant exhibitions, have been unable to find any discussions/reviews of her work ps. i note that the article on Polit in the spanish wp appears to be a copy of this article. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:43, 9 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!} 06:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raúl Martín (bishop)[edit]

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

Zero citations since its creation in 2013. Fails GNG & NBIO. A BEFORE check shows the man exists, but only basic/brief mentions and no depth of coverage required to pass notability standards. Wikipedia is not a directory. Platonk (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verified at [20] as a diocesian Roman Catholic bishop. I'm concerned that Spanish and Portugese language sources, along with place names and accents in the name, is making search for further RS difficult. Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as author - there is plenty of information available about the subject if you search outside the English language internet. [21] Here is a Duckduckgo search for news items. [22] Here is a recent news item. Also look at the sources on es.wiki. All the best, Taketa (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Says the editor who for eight years (including today) still hasn't added a single citation to the article while presenting a blank DuckDuckGo search result and a link to a single interview (a primary source). Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability. Where's the beef? Platonk (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Verified as a catholic diocesian bishop.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Being appointed a Catholic Bishop does not automatically confer Wikipedia-level notability on a person. Subject doesn't pass WP:GNG nor WP:NBIO. There are many Catholic bishops who do not have a standalone Wikipedia article. Voting per WP:ILIKEIT doesn't change the fact of non-notability. Bring some citations or valid notability arguments to support your !votes. Platonk (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does being a bishop confer automatic notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of references in the corresponding Spanish article at https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%BAl_Mart%C3%ADn Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets both WP:GNG since there is in depth coverage by multiple independent reliable sources and also meets WP:CLERGY as a bishop. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the three sources at eswiki a simple quick search reveals plenty of independent reliable sources with in-depth coverage in Spanish. Examples: La Información, LaPampaNoticias, La Prensa, etc. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:35, 5 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!} 06:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Siti Networks[edit]

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

Only one merger reference, notability or importance not proven. Greatder (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Greatder (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is one of the four major distribution companies in the Indian market since the inception of private broadcasting and there is abundant sourcing available for it. The state of an article is not relevant to whether a topic is notable, please consider searching before nominating an article for deletion. Here's a small sample of academic sources that have provided it with significant coverage.

Mishra, Shashi Shekhar; Roy, Sanjit Kumar (2017). "Case Study 5". In Adhikari, Atanu; Roy, Sanjit Kumar (eds.). Strategic Marketing Cases in Emerging Markets. Springer International Publishing. pp. 61–78. ISBN 978-3-319-51545-8.
Panda, Brahmadev; Rao, P. H. (Jan 2012). "Corporate Restructuring: Demerging Impact". SCMS Journal of Indian Management. 9 (1). School of Communication and Management Studies: 8–9. SSRN 2782754.
Parthasarathi, V.; Amanullah, A.; Koshy, Susan (2016). "Digitalization as formalization: a view from below". International Journal of Digital Television. 9 (2). Intellect: 163–166. doi:10.1386/JDTV.7.2.155_1.
Liu, Chun; Jayakar, Krishna (2012). "The evolution of telecommunications policy-making: Comparative analysis of China and India". Telecommunications Policy. 36 (1). Elsevier: 19. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2011.11.016. ISSN 0308-5961.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tayi Arajakate: Your sources look pretty reliable. I generally search the google news tab to find notability and since that tab was dry as well as the article, I raised the AfD. I don't know how to close it as keep though so I guess someone else will have to do that. Greatder (talk) 02:47, 10 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.