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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tennyson Whiting[edit]

Tennyson Whiting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Couldn't find many sources on this player whatsoever, and he hasn't had any success on the major circuits of professional tennis Adamtt9 (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clearly fails NTENNIS and only receives minor coverage in the likes of Edwardsville Intelligencer. I found this tiny article about his unconventional racket but not enough for GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Maybe 900 ranking spots below notability? Geschichte (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Local sources only mention Whiting by name for game/ranking announcements (e.g. [1], [2], [3] and [4]). There is no in-depth coverage of this player. Fails WP:SIGCOV and therefore fails WP:GNG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Maggio[edit]

Roberto Maggio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Sources provided are all of the promotional type (no byline, overly fawning, etc.). ... discospinster _talk 16:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I'm not finding anything reliable: sources labeled "promotional item" or written by "News Partner" or "Brand Partner Agency" or "Featured Partner" clearly don't meet the mark. This is probably UPI, and regardless the notability criteria aren't met. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Staner[edit]

Mike Staner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is no actual clear claim to doing anything that makes him notable. The one source is a primary source, it is his recounding his life to someone else, who then lightly editied it. There are no secondary sources, let alone ones that would show notability John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I did find busied passing mentions to either his work or his existence, but nothing that seems to rise to the level of a substantial mention that would lead to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. While he published his memoirs, I can't find any evidence they have been noticed by media or scholars. Note that in 1999 two books were published: The Eyewitnes and Ties of Blood. Story of Mike Staner as told to Victoria Steele, not sure what is the difference, but again, I can't see evidence either has generated any reception. I am afraid he fails WP:NBIO as well as the WP:NAUTHOR. Ping me if better sources are found. PS. I nominated this for deletion at pl wiki at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2021:08:03:Mieczysław_Staner and will update here if new valid sources or arguments are made there.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: deleted from pl wiki. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - AfD doesn't seem to be in the log, I have listed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 23 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject is a notable survivor of the Holocaust whose testimony appears in numerous works including Ordinary Jews: Choice and Survival During the Holocaust; Beyond Violence: Jewish Survivors in Poland and Slovakia; Jewish Families in Europe, 1939-Present; The Holocaust: Europe, the World, and the Jews, 1918 - 1945; The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933-1945; and plenty more in the Polish language too. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe Staner would defiantly be considered notable as his experiences have been published in detail in at least two books and are considered part of Holocaust literature. His book was also referenced in Re-examining the Holocaust through Literature, but I do not have a copy to see to what extent. Weber1982 (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Austin[edit]

Stuart Austin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:MMANOT criteria by only having 2 fights in top tier promotions. Also fails WP:GNG as fights are merely routine report. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 23:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NMMA and only routine sports reporting.Sandals1 (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NMMA and GNG. Cassiopeia talk 09:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andromeda (skyscraper)[edit]

Andromeda (skyscraper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This apartment building does not meet WP:NBUILDING criteria as it does not have historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, nor enough independent SIGCOV in reliable, third-party sources for WP:GNG. The coverage seems to be more about marketing the condos. Article was created by a COI/UPE editor, who has been indeff'd. Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Creation by blocked UPE. Not a particulalry attractive or standout building. scope_creep^Talk 08:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per Scope_creep. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It does have in-depth coverage in the form of a review by real estate website Think of Living[5]. The project announcement was covered by Khao Sod (and probably others), though the article appears to be mainly based on the press release[6]. Mentioned in a Bangkok Post piece about the company's operations[7], already cited in article. Briefly mentioned in an article about investing in Pattaya real estate by DDproperty.com[8]. Winner in the Thailand Property Awards 2017[9] (removed from the article prior to AfD). --Paul_012 (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I translated the "review" from Thai to English, it seemed like a press release and sales pitch to buy condos, not a serious architectural review nor in-depth coverage. Netherzone (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's a website aimed at condo buyers; it's not supposed to be a serious architectural critique. The article is certainly not a press release, though it naturally repeats some information supplied by the developer. (Are you looking at the entire thing, by any chance? There's a "Read more" button doesn't seem to work under the Google Translate website.) More could be discussed on how independent/reliable such websites are as a source (the industry in Thailand is not always transparent about sponsorship), but the writing approach seems comparable to the gadget/video game review websites commonly known throughout the Web. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Paul 012, I'll go back and try to find the "Read more" button. Netherzone (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was able to click on "Read More" and manually translate paragraph by paragraph. Think of Living is a real estate sales site, it is not a newspaper, magazine nor journal. It seems to be an affiliate of realtor.com and propertyguru.com according to the links at the bottom of the main page. Several sections of Read More are about Pattaya and Pratumanak Hill, not about the building. Then one finds descriptions on how to find the beach or shopping mall. Then there is a very long, detailed and illustrated section on driving directions to the condo sales office. The info on the condo itself amounts to things like "the lot is rectangular", "good vacation venue", "nice views". 9/10th of the article is public relations sales promo. I don't think this source can be taken seriously as SIGCOV in RS as it's crystal clear it's "product placement" sponsored content or Native advertising. Netherzone (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough assessment, though I wouldn't say it's crystal clear sponsored content. The website carries plenty of critical reviews, though the author's holding back on giving the property a value-for-the-money score on this one does seem rather suspicious. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this building has won an award, Best High-Rise Condo Architectural Design (Resort) at the PropertyGuru Thailand Property Awards, organized by PropertyGuru, a company that descibes itself as a "property technology company". With 39 awards and 41 nominees, how can you NOT win? What the source (thephuketnews.com) doesn't make clear is that the organizer will let anyone enter the "competition" for free, but then requires all shortlisted entrants to purchases an Awards Marketing Package (or more than one). In other words, this award is a promotional marketing event, paid for by the developers of the buildings. Vexations (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Route of Ages[edit]

Route of Ages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Uncited article of plot information on a concept from two seasons of the TV series Andromeda. Doesn't meet the GNG. Only potential redirect target is List of Andromeda episodes which mentions some of this topic; a merge would be undue. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Minor plot element from a minor TV shows, no references, no suggestion of notability in the article. Pure WP:FANCFRUFT. PS. I'd encourage the nom to consider WP:PROD for such articles, this is really the proverbial bottom of the barrer we see at AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable and unsourced plot device. All I can find is mentions in plot summaries. -- Whpq (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Balde[edit]

Alejandro Balde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft Might be one for the future, some info online. Govvy (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - the Goal.com source that just got added looks like good coverage. I can't see much else though so doesn't look to meet the multiple source requirement for GNG just yet. Plausible that he could meet criteria soon so draft space seems appropriate. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep passes GNG, even though he fails NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there's GNG coverage out there. Here's another one. Nfitz (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Barely has enough to pass GNG, but there's surely a lot more sources that can be found online, considering the coverage Balde has received in the past year. @Nfitz already provided one source, at least it's a start. Oblow14 (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftifty: potential debut this season. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: there is a good potential that he could meet criteria soon. --Assyrtiko (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Although fails WP:FOOTYN, but he is too young, could possibly meet the GNG soon Mehmood.Husain (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep He has enough coverage to pass GNG, alas in Spanish-language media; that's not a reason to not consider them when assessing GNG. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 08:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ignoring the sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Whiteley[edit]

Conor Whiteley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A footballer who has never played higher than the eighth level of English football, four levels below the fully professional leagues, thus failing WP:NFOOTBALL. No evidence of GNG pass either - refs in the article as it stands are simply match results/reports from official club/league sites which only mention him in the context of the team line-up and do not offer any in-depth coverage.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clear failure of WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JW 1961 ^Talk 21:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - GNG-failing semi-pro footballer Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom and other AfD contributors, the subject does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL, and there is nothing to suggest that WP:SIGCOV is met. (As noted, the sources that seem to be available just about support the text [team sheets, match reports, etc]. None of the sources [linked in the article or seemingly available elsewhere], would seem to support a claim to notability under GNG/SIGCOV.) Guliolopez (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. DJRSD (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Kranich[edit]

David Kranich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The unsuccessful Republican nominee for mayor of Washington DC in 2006, in which he received a whopping 6% of the vote. There are no sources for the subject that aren't just routine election coverage (WP:SIGCOV), and there is certainly no lasting notability. Curbon7 (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Couldn't find any sources outside of basic election stuff either. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, but this article neither claims preexisting notability for reasons other than an unsuccessful candidacy nor demonstrates any reason to treat his candidacy as markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies. It depends mainly on primary sources that are not support for notability at all, with a small smattering of purely routine and run of the mill campaign coverage mixed in, and that's not good enough to claim that he would permanently pass WP:GNG in lieu of actually having to hold a notable office under WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Jones (disambiguation)[edit]

Darryl Jones (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

2 page disambig, can be covered by hatnotes CiphriusKane (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 4 valid entries, easily meets dab guidelnies. Boleyn (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except one of those is a red link for a footballer who played tier 2 football, which is now depreciated in terms of football notability. How is that considered valid? CiphriusKane (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:DABENTRY, MOS:DABRL, MOS:DABMENTION...dabs are indexes of where someone/something has an article or a mention in an article. Boleyn (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep given Boleyn's improvements. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban first press conference[edit]

Taliban first press conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article is not notable per WP:NOTNEWS. It is a news report, which violates criterion #2 of not news. The subject also fails the 10 year test and probably won't be relevant in the future. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 19:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 19:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom and WP:NOTNEWS. There is no indication that this press conference will be any more notable than future press conferences because it is the first one. KidAd • SPEAK 20:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP: NOTNEWS pure and simple. The information could be merged into an article about the recent Taliban takeover, but it is not notable enough for a stand alone article.TH1980 (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Living prime ministers of New Zealand[edit]

Living prime ministers of New Zealand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Statscruft; with a WP:OR section about "statistics" and nothing to be found that supports that this specific grouping is notable in and of itself (and there's no encyclopedic information about the subject that couldn't be included in either List of prime ministers of New Zealand or Prime minister of New Zealand...). Also, except for some mundane references in the first paragraph of the lead, this wholly fails WP:V RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes, it could go in those articles, but they're already long and complex. Adding this information would make them harder to read. This article needs to be noted as the main article at Prime Minister of New Zealand#Living former prime ministers. Johnragla (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact is that most of this is not encyclopedic information. It's statistical trivia, with very little (read: none) secondary source to back up the relevance of the whole it. So there's no need even for a merge, since there's not much that would need to be merged anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment List of prime ministers of New Zealand, List of prime ministers of New Zealand by age,

List of prime ministers of New Zealand by date of birth, List of prime ministers of New Zealand by place of birth, Living prime ministers of New Zealand and List of burial places of New Zealand Prime Ministers. New to this area, but why are these not just one sortable table? Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've nominated these too, as unnecessary content forks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article has already been nominated once before under its former title Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Prime Ministers of New Zealand. My reasoning to delete this is the same as before, it's needless trivia to know which country's leaders were all alive at any given time. There are a number of similar articles nominated for deletion as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living presidents of the United States and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living prime ministers of the United Kingdom and these were deleted back in 2018: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living Prime Ministers of Sweden and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Prime Ministers of Australia. Ajf773 (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an almanac nor is it a collection of trivia. pburka (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Presidents of the United States. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That page is also being reconsidered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living presidents of the United States. pburka (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That page has since been deleted.67.173.23.66 (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The references and page views cited above demonstrate the value of this article. Green Hook 1224 (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only useful references are there to support the fact that some new channels did interviews of former PMs; and some page which is mostly focused on benefits former MPs (the order of letters is important), only trivially mentioning PMs in a single paragraph (this doesn't support there's coverage of either group: at best, this is information which goes in the the page about New Zealand MPs in general; and gets a passing mention in Revolving door (politics). The argument for page views, is particularly silly this time because, except for a few odd spikes; (one of them corresponding with the beginning of this AfD), the number of page views is on average in single digits... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Utterly trivial and not relevant to the politics of any given year, how many prime ministers were living at a given time. Geschichte (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The page is now being consistently vandalised by an IP who keeps putting back in the same OR as before. Don't have the patience to deal with that... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The variation in numbers of living prime ministers is not shown adequately in any other article, and this article presents readers with a valuable look at the topic. Fabio 7654 (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you've failed to show how this is an actually encyclopedic topic, by not showing any reliable source discussing how supposedly "interesting" the "variation in numbers of living prime ministers" is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the decision made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living presidents of the United States67.173.23.66 (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there's way too many of these types of list articles. There's a truck load of them, related to US presidents & US vice presidents, for example. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too far out in terms of encyclopedicality. The exact same type of article has been deleted for Australia, Sweden and the US. Nurg (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - One could probably find quite a few articles for deletion in this (see below) box. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: doesn't add any encyclopaedic value — DaxServer (talk to me) 06:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations Edge3 (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom. WP:LISTCRUFT. Living PMs could easily be emphasised in List of prime ministers of New Zealand, no need for a separate article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living presidents of India, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living presidents of Bolivia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living prime ministers of the United Kingdom, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living prime ministers of India, this is to my eye an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of statistics without context or explanation of significance, and as such WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. I don't see anything worth merging to List of prime ministers of New Zealand, and I don't think this title would make for a useful redirect. If we want to, we can create a graphical illustration akin to Template:Lifespan of each President of India, but that can be discussed separately. TompaDompa (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations --Assyrtiko (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Cruse[edit]

Susan Cruse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article fails WP:GNG, it's an unreferenced BLP and I couldn't find coverage of the subject. Subject fails WP:NACTOR because she only has 3 minor credits (single episode appearances) to her name. RetiredDuke (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I find HighKing's contribution the most persuasive. Daniel (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam Centre[edit]

Vietnam Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable NGO that fails to satisfy WP:NGO. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search shows me google hits in primary unreliable sources such as this and this. Needless to say WP:ORGDEPTH isn’t met. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At first glance I was going to vote delete because this organization seems too new to appear on Wikipedia. I did some research on Google and was able to find quite many independent reliable sources about this organization. I think this is all sources one can find.

• In Vietnamese: in-depth article, in-depth article, slightly mentioned, a film they made, half an article, their exhibition, also about that exhibition. Their clothing book project seems to be the most notable thing, which receives coverage from quite several media: [10] [11] expectations, fundraising announcement, in-depth article, in-depth article, in-depth article, in-depth article.
• In English: an article about a book they published, their clothing project. — Băng Tỏa (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article or posted above meet the criteria. They are either small mentions-in-passing or "in-depth" but only because they rely on information provided through interview or by the company. I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per HighKing. — Băng Tỏa (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficient independent sources. There is hardly any reporting of any organisation which is not informed by information provided by the organisationa and interviews with its people. Rathfelder (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A fair discussion here. It was identified that the individual does not seem to meet any one specific notability guideline. Those guidelines however expressly permit notability to be established via other means and there seems to be a consensus around the fact that the person maintained a local sustained notability and likely meets the General notability guideline. Seddon ^talk 08:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Horace B. Griffen[edit]

Horace B. Griffen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unelected political candidate: fails WP:NPOL. WP:BEFORE shows a long career in journalism newspapers (see below), but not enough to pass WP:GNG. Ingratis (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update, from further refs added to the article: apparently not a journalist but involved in newspaper advertising and circulation. Ingratis (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning keep. This is an interesting case. According to his obituary, he played professional baseball with the Chicago White Sox for two months while in college (presumably in the 1910s or early 1920s, since his education was interrupted by three years of service in World War I). As it happens, he played for Arizona State University. Guess who shows up in Template:Arizona State Sun Devils baseball coach navbox the year before the war? BD2412 T 17:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Oh great, a fleeting baseball career. Is there any way to link to the actual articles from the Arizona Republic? Also, what is the source for HBG's inclusion in the coaches navbox, since the navbox itself is not a source? If you can come up with that I'll withdraw the nomination.Ingratis (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have already posed that very question to User:Jweiss11, who added the names including Griffen to the navbox. I'm not so concerned about the fleeting baseball career as I am about the prospect that the collection of activities (sports, military, journalism, politics) leads to aggregate notability. As for the article, you can sign up for access to resources like this at Wikipedia:Library. BD2412 T 19:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see anything notable beyond the pro baseball career, I'm afraid, if that can be adequately sourced. He served in WWI - like millions. He was a respected provincial newspaper editor and a failed candidate for office. A (very) local museum has a page about him on their website. Adding them all together doesn't = notability. Ingratis (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • BD2412, I likely populated Template:Arizona State Sun Devils baseball coach navbox using the Arizona State baseball media guide (2019 edition: https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/asu.sidearmsports.com/documents/2019/2/15/19BSBMediaGuide1.pdf) or the NCAA records database (https://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/careersearch). Jweiss11 (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems that Griffen never played Major League Baseball, but given that he won the Republican nomination for a state governor election and given the abundance of converge on the subject including an obituary picked up by the AP, subject passes GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jweiss11 (talk • contribs) 01.12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - it now appears (above) that HBG never played Major League baseball, and when he was coach of what is now the Arizona Sun Devils team it was not a college or university team, but only a school side for the Tempe Normal School, which did not become a college until the 1920s, so he fails WP:BASEBALL/N, and I'll not after all withdraw the nomination. He also fails WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate. As for the coverage, most of it is from the Arizona Republic, which is not surprising since he worked for it, and the rest relate either to his short, modest and non-notable baseball career or to his failed candidacy. So my view remains that he's not notable. Ingratis (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have been trying to source his playing career... according to ASU sources [12] he signed with the White Sox organization in late 1914 and played briefly in their farm systems at the start of 1915 before joining the army.. however this is before farm systems were really a thing and baseball reference has no stats listed for him with the 1914 or 1915 Milwaukee minor league clubs and there was no "Green Bay" team in the American Association in either year... they had a team in the Wisconsin-Illinois League in 1914 but he's not listed there either... so if he was on a roster he never played. Spanneraol (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and to make an unelected candidate notable enough for inclusion you must demonstrate either (a) credible evidence that they had preexisting notability for other reasons besides a non-winning candidacy per se (the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) a much greater depth and range of coverage than normal, marking their candidacies out as much more special than other people's candidacies in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (the Christine O'Donnell test.) But being signed by a major league baseball team does not pass our notability criteria for baseball players if the person never actually played in a major league baseball game, which eliminates option A, and there's no strong evidence being shown here that his candidacy itself would satisfy option B. Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- We have articles on failed presidential candidates, but not (I think) below that. A brief career in baseball is not enough to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep is where I'm ending up on this one. There's not really a specific "thing" that he's notable "for" in our guideline library, except that it seems he's gotten a whole lot of coverage for whatever he happened to be doing at most any given point in life. That, to me, points to a pass on WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am inclined to treat a normal school (an older name for a teachers college - in this context, "normal" refers to norms or standards) like any other post-secondary institution, even though it awarded a certificate rather than a degree.From the Normal school article: A normal school is an institution created to train high school graduates to be teachers by educating them in the norms of pedagogy and curriculum. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arizona State University makes a point of treating Griffen as an alumni of the university. Their media guide touts him as a legend, being the first ASU student to sign with a major league baseball team. BD2412 T 20:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For our purposes here, Arizona State should be considered a top-level college sports teams even in its early days when it was a normal school. Ingratis's comment above about a "school side" is an inapt transposition of a Britishism onto American college sports. I have no idea what a "school side" is (although I can guess), and I'm surely no novice when it comes to American college sports. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, the the NCAA was only a few years formed at the time. There were no "divisions" to speak of until 1956.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: UserJWeiss11's bland assertion of significance requires independent corroboration, i.e., to the effect that a teacher training establishment had the same sporting status as a university, regardless of whether it was later incorporated into one. (I note the anti-British sneer in passing). The article is accumulating references, but still as above: either published by the newspaper HBG worked for, and of local interest only (like his golden wedding), or about his NN baseball career or his equally NN political candidacy, now topped up by trivia like his support for the Arizona Decorating Co. Despite a disproportionate amount of effort it remains clear that he is not more than locally notable: your goose is not a swan. Ingratis (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above --Paul McDonald (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Arizona Republic is a national newspaper and a longstanding highly regarded source, and I see no argument that this should be discounted in its reporting on this subject - particularly during periods when he was not employed by them, such as during his war service, and his obituary. Of course, a majority of references in the article are to other sources. BD2412 T 01:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ingratis, I'm not anti-British, but I am indeed against people wading authoritatively, and combatively, into matters of which they are ignorant. Here's exhibit A of hundreds that provide independent corroboration that athletics at normal schools were considered full-fledged college sports in the late 1800s and early 1900s: Template:1919 Kansas Collegiate Athletic Conference football standings; see cited ref: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/55979342/the-wichita-beacon/. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see that disagreeing with you is combative. As above, other people have also thought this man NN on baseball grounds. You could have made this point earlier when you dismissed him as a player: I assume that his notability rests on his period as coach. Thanks for the source. Ingratis (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A focus on narrow topical guidelines misses the mark. Multiple news sources that discuss the person in depth meets WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Seems there was nothing in itself that would be considered notable. However, the media coverage from his many ambitions would seem to pass WP:GNG. Weber1982 (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seddon ^talk 08:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standpatter Republican[edit]

Standpatter Republican (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This topic is not notable and has little to not coverage in sources. Extensive WP:BEFORE and searches of other databases yield nothing. The few hits that do come up are usually using the term standpatter as an adjective (ie conservative) rather than alluding to a recognised faction or group within the Republican party that went by this name. Some hits just happen to have the words next to each other. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Reads like a half-baked introductory paragraph to a college essay. KidAd • SPEAK 00:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But poor-quality writing is justification for improvement, not deletion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - it's not really a "faction" in the sense that people gathered together and referred to themselves in those terms, but it does seem to be a part of common political parlance in that particular period. Here is someone being described in those terms in the New York Times in 1915. This book gives a fairly succinct definition of what those described this way believed. This book describes the effect those beliefs had on the politics of the day. This report in the Florida State University Law Review provides further detail. I do think that renaming the article to Standpatter (with explanation therein that it is a term related to particular Republicans) would be a significant improvement. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the article is quite definitive in describing this as a faction rather just a descriptive phase. If this is just a descriptive phase then I am not sure it is notable either as you could make this argument for many articles using the formula Adjective + Republican. The sources presented are primary uses of this phrase rather than secondary explanations of it. I will go through the sources you presented as they demonstrate my initial point:

1. [13] The article uses the phrase as follows: "He was the irreconcilable standpatter Republican". This is clearly just using "standpatter" as an adjective to present the conservatism of Cannon and the Republican party.
2. [14]This books sole reference is as follows: "...the 'standpatter' Republican Party sought to maintain advantages for the patrician class, while the populist Democrats sought to...". Again this seems to use the term "standpatter" as an adjective to contrast the Republican's conservatism with the Democrat's populism.
3. [15] Again the term is used once in this book. Is one of the more compelling sources but still really just means 'conservative'. And I'm not sure a single primary usage in a book about a film executive gives this term notability.
4. [16] An incredibly obscure reference which uses the term once without any explanation. Strangely the text speaks about a report given to congress by Sereno Payne (d. 1914) but links to a congressional record from 1919 (five years after his death). I don't have the time or will to check this reference. Either way this seems unreliable or just plain obscure at best.

Standpatter already has a well established meaning so it would make little sense (and be confusing) to change the title of the article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly my point - our article gets it wrong and should be corrected. This was not a specific, organised faction, it was a way (in the common parlance of the day) to describe a particular type of Republican. And the definition you give comes from that common usage of the term to describe this particular grouping of like-minded people. As opposed to something like the Tea Party Caucus, or even the related Tea Party movement. I think we could safely rename it without it being conflated with something else. There isn't - from what I can see - some other common use of the term for it to be confused with. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to sources that makes this argument? Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which argument? St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This one: This was not a specific, organised faction, it was a way (in the common parlance of the day) to describe a particular type of Republican. And the definition you give comes from that common usage of the term to describe this particular grouping of like-minded people. Am I misunderstanding something, or is this only a view vaguely alluded to by Wolraich? Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, its based on the description from the Merriam-Webster link above. Following Hanna's use of the term, it became a common way to describe people with that view (mostly Republicans) and to "stand pat" (separately) has come to be used in a range of other contexts. So "standpatters" or "stand-patters" as a description of that group (like "stalwarts") or "stand pat" as a verb used elsewhere, and more recently (like "stalwart", which we disambiguate). But they still have the same genesis. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A source! A source! My kingdom for a source! Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the ones in the article? St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I had some time and so cleaned the article up a bit. I need to work on the references but the two that provide a specific description of who and what the standpatters were is enough for me. And I'll proposed a name-change following this AfD. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Seems to be notable in my view. There are numerous contemporaneous news articles of Standpatter Republicans distincted from Progressive Republicans, and with significant coverage. A newspapers.com search of "Standpatter" with the additional queries of "between 1900 and 1930" and "in the USA" returns a whopping 191,000 articles. I browsed through the thumbnails of the first 50 or so, and all of them are referring to this faction, not some other use of standpatter. Additionally, another search for "Standpatter Republican" (with no additional queries bc I didn't think they were necessary with such a specific term) returns over 1,000 articles. And yeah many are simply passing mentions, but many others provide significant coverage that show this was a notable faction contemporaneously. The article does need work to better integrate it into the encyclopedia; however, it should be kept as it passes WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number of search results does not give notability. There are nearly a thousand results for Pink Dog - should we give this an article? On a more serious note, "Standpatter Democrat" gives nearly 700 results. Of course any adjective + noun gives a lot of hits and an adjective alone will give many more. As I outlined above, many search results are literally from the two words happening to be next to each other without even being linked. Still waiting for a secondary source explaining the faction, it's history, members etc without that it is just primary uses of a phrase and WP:ORIGINAL. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Vladimir.copic, A newspaper article is a secondary source... Regardless, I concur with Stalwart111 that a page move to 'Standpatter' or 'Standpatter (United States)' is a good Alternative to Deletion, as that would help contextualize and include Standpatter Democrats and the historical meaning and relevance of standpatters, instead of just having multiple itty-bitty stubs on standpatter factions within various American political parties. Curbon7 (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's already covered here. Remember WP:NOTDIC. In this context the newspapers certainly are primary sources considering we are dealing with a descriptive term that the media used. They are not quoting others in most cases or, as far as a I can see, writing about the term. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Vladimir.copic, WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Curbon7 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah totally. Just waiting for significant coverage by reliable sources on this phrase to change my mind. Usage of a phrase does not make it notable - that's what dictionaries are for. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note on new sources as usual Stalwart111 has done a valliant job attempting to bring an article from a dusty corner of history up to scratch. I just want to address the new sources provided. I realise that actually reading sources often doesn't have any weight in these discussion so I'm just going to be brief.

• Michael Wolraich's book is probably the only source I can find that gives significant attention to this idea. He extensively speaks of Standpatter Republicans but this is just a single work and therefore does not provide notability.
• The rest of the sources fall into the trivial category. Singular or breif usages of the word in much bigger works without any explanation of the term and mostly using it as an adjective . [17] uses the term twice in 370+ page work with no explanation of the term - once to refer to republicans, once to refer to the Supreme Court. [18] uses the term once in a 400+ page book to refer to conservatives with no explanation of the term. [19] a few sentences in a 240 page book - gives a brief description of the meaning of the term in how it was applied in a single usage.

Some of the usages of the sources in the current article amount to WP:ORIGINAL. Drawing on primary sources to make assertions (particularly the "It is said that the term was so commonly used between 1901 and the 1930s" section).Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Missed one! [20] places the term exactly where it belongs. In a dictionary with no reference to a standpatter faction or group in the Republican party. Just a synonym for reactionary. If only WP had a sister site that could house this. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's... not a traditional dictionary. Its a collated history of words and their political contexts. It's what William Safire did and he was pretty famous for it. It won't reference a standpatter faction or group... because there wasn't one. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok…so why are you defending this article. We seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding here. I am talking about an article called Standpatter Republican you seem to be talking about a new article called “Stand-Pat”. I have throughout acknowledged that stand-pat is indeed a political descriptive term. I am disputing the crux of this article that it was a group. Stand-pat was used up until at least the 60s to describe republicans and democrats. Make a stand-pat article if you believe it warrants an article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was clear what the article was driving at, but it was clumsily written, sourced and named. But those are fixable and none of those are reasons for deletion. It was clearly about the parlance, in a specific political context, and not a simple dictionary definition of "stand pat" (which arguably does warrant an article of its own). WP:BEFORE is about more than just doing a google search to see if that particular set of words is notable. Is the subject of the article notable? AfD isn't a venue for disputing current article content, or titles. You aren't nominating a set of words for deletion, you're arguing that a subject isn't notable and that we shouldn't have an article about it. So when you demand sources for what was in a previous version of the article, you do yourself and AfD a disservice. Because we aren't (ever) discussing whether a specific previous version of an article should be deleted. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you are right. I just didn’t realise the point of AfD was to change the subject (and hope to later change the title) of an article while divining the intention of the original author. I simplistically took the article at face value seeing as it spoke about a faction and a list of faction members. Will bear this in mind going forward. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nobody changed the subject but yep, that's exactly what WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD are about. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you're probably looking for is William Safire's Political Dictionary, and its variant editions. Yes, in an effort to transcribe information into the article, primary sources were interpreted and that all needs work, refinement, and improvement. Its a work in progress. The "its badly written" argument has been addressed already. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is badly written. In fact it is a well written WP:SYNTH. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now that has been addressed also. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the subject is not notable, and all we're talking about here is a term, so this is a WP:DICDEF, not a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. The use of WP:PRIMARY sources speaks to a valiant attempt to beef up the DICDEF to look like a sourced article (and an even more valiant attempt to argue down all comers here at AfD), but it's actually a clear case of WP:OR by synthesis. Delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strange way to characterise a civil discussion between two editors (one part as a result of my comment, and the other after a comment in which I was tagged). And given that the use of primary sources and synthesis have both been addressed, and most of the references are clearly secondary, I have to wonder which version of the article you're referring to... St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge There may be scope for expansion – see The psychology of the reformer and the stand-patter, for example. The worst case would be merger to a page such as Glossary of American politics, which explains such local language. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - for the sake of clarity: the scope of the article hasn't changed (isn't changing), it was poorly expressed to begin with and that has now been resolved through editing. Multiple sources have now been included in the article, several of which give the subject substantial coverage and none of which have been deemed unreliable. This is about a group of people, clearly well-known to their peers, who were described using this term. In addition, they were well known enough that the term has had a lasting impact on political diologue and has since been used more recently. The original article's use of the term "faction" was a bit of a red herring as none of the reliable sources refer to this group by that term. But the article is still about that group of people and the sources are still about that same group. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per WP:HEY. Sourcing looks good now. The Tidwell article is a nice round-up of usage. Suriname0 (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seddon ^talk 00:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Elliot[edit]

Kings Elliot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

According to the only source provided "SRF 3 honors aspiring musicians from Switzerland. One act is in focus every month." She is one of a number of people to be named best talent and the description itself notes she is "aspiring" which means she doesn't meet WP:NMG yet. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some additional sources. I believe this singer is notable per 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works'. Math1985 (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-08 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. A voter above added several sources but I find them to be generally suspicious, using terms like "classic" for a song that was just released or "rising" which is a typical term used by an artist's promoters rather than journalists. Those sources are overwhelmingly promotional and only show that she has a management team that knows how to get PR releases onto fancy looking websites. That does not equate to the significant and reliable coverage from impartial journalists that is necessary here. If her songs hit the charts that may change. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:TOOSOON and @Doomsdayer520. She is in the early phase of her career and there is nothing noteworthy or significant about that career or its coverage at this time. If her career actually takes off in the future, the article can be recreated, but most aspiring musicians go nowhere so that is WP:CRYSTALBALL for now. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Smith[edit]

Jonah Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article has no reliable sources for the information within - any sources it may have had may have been deprecated and considered unreliable. Without any citations, the whole article is purely unsourced and no longer meets with WP:V, regardless of notability. GUtt01 (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Article has had citations added in of late, and most comments seem focused on keeping the article (albeit, with some information removed that is unsourced or original research), thus see no further need to continue discussion based on input given and action taken to attend to issue I laid out.GUtt01 (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article has several references from syracuse.com, which is the website of The Post-Standard, a reliable source. The nominator may have misunderstood this. The previous AfD resulted in a Keep. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If that was the case, such references would have been placed into the article after that AfD over five years ago! Despite this, those sources only cover a fraction of the information in the article, mostly the lede and the involvement in AGT - they don't cover the sections for Education, Early Career (Boston 1998–2000), Career (Brooklyn 2000–2013), Los Angeles (2013–present) and Discography. If those sections aren't covered, not only would WP:V be in serious doubt for the information in these areas, the nature of WP:NMG, particularly WP:MUSICBIO, would be in question as well. So despite there being some references, there is not enough to cover the information within. GUtt01 (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Enough coverage exists to satisfy GNG and NMUSIC: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. --Michig (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No offense to anyone putting forward citations to argue "Keep", but it beggars belief that when no citations were given to the article for over a decade since the notification was made, that it takes a second AfD for someone to realize to find such sources. If you find such citations, not only show them here, but put them in where they are needed, even when this discussion is over. It's hard to understand why five citations in the previous AfD never got put in when that discussion ended.GUtt01 (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that notability is concerned with the existence of sources, and not whether they are cited in the article? We don't delete articles simply because the available sources haven't been added yet. If it bothers you that much, you can add them yourself. --Michig (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For most articles, yes, but in biographical articles, its a bit different. When the article has information put in without citations for so long, verification becomes a serious issue, and then notability may be placed in question if the other information have to be deleted. Thus I said the nature of WP:NMG would be in question, if the other information could not be verified, reducing the notability of the article's subject as a result. In addition, it's agreeable we don't delete articles if sources haven't been added in when available, but if they have been around for so long, one must question why it took so long to do so. I would have, but this is the first time I saw the article in my life, so I wouldn't have had reason to source the information. GUtt01 (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While the article needs improvement (in the form of citations) the sources do exist out there to confirm notability WP:GNG, per Eastmain and Michig comments above. AfD is not cleanup WP:DINC. I understand the nominator's point about the problem with the quantity of long-standing unsourced material, however the article could be trimmed of excessive detail and unsourced biographic content and exist as a stub until someone jumps in to improve it. I'll add a few sourced listed above and do a little trimming. Netherzone (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Appreciate it. Wouldn't have nominated this for AfD again, if some people had used a little common sense considered thinking carefully about avoiding this by ensuring citations had been added in after the previous AfD. GUtt01 (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Maybe the nominator would consider following WP:BEFORE and attempting article improvement themselves before making similar nominations in future, as it would use less of the project's resources. --Michig (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No offense, but as I stated above, perhaps some common sense by others people involved in the previous AfD could have avoided this; I would have if I had checked properly, but even then it may not still have happened, because I might have questioned the citations put forward in the previous discussion. If those citations had been put forward after that discussion, we wouldn't have had this matter crop up. GUtt01 (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Estadio Municipal de Pasarón[edit]

Estadio Municipal de Pasarón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Pontevedra CF, the club that plays there. GiantSnowman 19:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep dealt with in multiple secondary sources. The old version was a La Liga venue. It has held international matches.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:HEY has taken place here. La Voz de Galicia provides WP:SIGCOV in this article. As does e-Architect. Mundo Deportivo describes the stadium as 'historic'. Aside from that, it has hosted fixtures in La Liga as well as an international match. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:HEY Nfitz (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reynolds–Sorgi incident[edit]

Reynolds–Sorgi incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The term "Reynolds-Sorgi incident" seems to be exclusive to Wikipedia. The coverage that I found was just WP:ROUTINE from around the time of the incident, and there doesn't seem to be much WP:PERSISTENCE from reliable sources. Possibly could redirect to Robert Reynolds but does not appear to be a searchable term. Fails WP:EVENT Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as failing WP:EVENT. I don't think there's a good way to retarget it as a redirect. The info should be in the Reynolds and Sorgi bios. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I'm not seeing good sources for the event. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 13:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TAXI (website)[edit]

TAXI (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Promotional article for news aggregator. Previous versions didn't have independent third-party coverage of the site itself either. No evidence of notability under WP:CORP, WP:NWEB, WP:GNG or any other guideline. RS coverage in a WP:BEFORE is passing mentions. Flagged for bad sourcing since 2012; no reasonable prospect of organic improvement - David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Totally promotional, and no evidence of notability. The king of the sun (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Three Doctors (motivational speakers). czar 15:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bond (book)[edit]

The Bond (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It only has primary sources and it isn’t notable. Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature related deletion discussions. Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to main article on the authors. Much of the coverage I'm finding discusses the book in relation to the authors, so I think a section on their books (other than a basic bibliography) could likely cover most of their writing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per RotP with no prejudice against unmerging as more in-depth sources about the individual books are found. (Also note that New York Times and Publishers' Weekly are certainly not primary sources.) pburka (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think the article demonstrates enough notability to be included on Wikipedia, but as a subsection on the Author's page would work better than a standalone piece.

LukeWWF (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sahaib3005: Did you remember to list this discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 3? pburka (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pburka:, I listed it now Sahaib3005 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Farrell[edit]

Ryan Farrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Former amateur footballer who is now an academy coach for Bradford City A.F.C. and manager for the Yorkshire football team, none of which is covered by WP:NFOOTBALL. All of the cited sources show just passing mentions or a single brief quote, which is insufficient for WP:GNG. In addition to these sources, I found Esquire, Cornwall Live and Jersey Evening Post but none of that coverage is any good either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. I have a season ticket at Bradford City and have never heard of him... GiantSnowman 19:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I updated the infobox to try to provide as much information towards NFOOTY as possible, and it's still a strong fail. While the college season at Scottsdale CC obviously fails NFOOTY, so does his entire career in the English non-league game. [27] [28] [29] are good examples of his playing coverage: passing mentions in programs and game recaps, fails GNG. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jhanjh Lobongo Phool[edit]

Jhanjh Lobongo Phool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails WP:GNG Princepratap1234 (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. For references about a Bengali-language soap opera, I think we need the Bengali equivalent of Soap Opera Digest. I can't find much by googling. Perhaps the company that compiles television ratings in India has published ratings numbers for the show. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of managers and coaches who have qualified for the UEFA Pro Licence[edit]

List of managers and coaches who have qualified for the UEFA Pro Licence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This list is indiscriminate, does not get updated, and only has sections for a few countries, never mind the fact that it's largely unsourced for most inclusions. If we were to try and make this article correctly, it would be absolutely huge, considering the amount of professional football managers there are that could have gotten this licence. The best option is to delete; this article has little to no purpose. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is almanac content and I'm pretty sure the only reason it was originally split was to fix the article it was split from, but UEFA Pro License is a terrible little stub now. That said, it's not clear how retaining this fixes the other thing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. Lists of qualifications serve no purpose. GiantSnowman 19:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a pointless list. In most European top division football leagues (and some lower leagues), the managers need to have this qualification. So this is just a list of all managers in those leagues. No need for a list of everyone with this qualification, in the same way as you wouldn't do so for everyone with a degree in e.g. maths. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with Joseph and pretty much want to echo what he says here. There is little to no encyclopaedic value to an exhaustive list of everybody that has obtained this qualification, it is not an exclusive enough club and there is little evidence that this group of coaches are discussed as a group, as is one of the general requirements of WP:LISTN. For similar reasons, I would also oppose a list of all people that have obtained a CeMAP, PGCE etc. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: needless, especially when the top leagues all managers have it or else they wouldn't be managing. its only notable when they dont have it like that one guy in the PL recently who had to leave after a short while due to not having one.Muur (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Georges Castex[edit]

Pierre-Georges Castex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not clear that this subject passes WP:SIGCOV or WP:NACADEMIC. 4meter4 (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:PROF as a a member of the Académie des sciences morales et politiques. TJMSmith (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks TJMSmith. I didn't see criteria 3. I'll withdraw.4meter4 (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 15:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Lee Evans[edit]

Simon Lee Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Tagged for notability 3 years ago. I can't really see any indication of notability here, referees are not covered by WP:NFOOTBALL so do not automatically warrant an article just for officiating an international fixture. The best coverage I can find is Radio1, L'Express and Kerkida, all of which is routine coverage and not WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Robert William Davis#Post-Congressional career and life where she's mentioned. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Davis[edit]

Marty Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems a straightforward example of WP:BIO1E. Further, its not clear that one event is even notable itself. Perhaps a mention in Robert William Davis's bio instead?

Ive included some potential sources if anyone wants to take a run at expanding this bio.

Also note user:Martycdavis [30] has edited this page in the past. Bonewah (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Nominator nominated the talk page of Marty Davis. I changed it to the article page. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Another comment. This old revision has more references. I'm not sure why they were removed. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Editor who claims they are Marty Davis (username matches the name of the subject of the article) has asked to have the article deleted in an edit summary.[31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netherzone (talk • contribs)
• Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 19:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Robert William Davis#Post-Congressional career and life. Fails WP:BIO per nom and WP:INHERIT. SBKSPP (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 15:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St Agnes A.F.C.[edit]

St Agnes A.F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

They have played in the Cornwall Combination and St Piran Football League (according to FCHD but both of these are below the cut-off point for notability established at WP:FOOTYN. They get a bit of coverage in the Falmouth Packet and other local papers but not enough for WP:GNG in my view. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete below our notability threshold. Number 57 08:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seddon ^talk 08:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time limit (video games)[edit]

Time limit (video games) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The concept of a time limit in general is widely covered in reliable sources, but it hasn't when it comes to video games. Only results I got in my searches weren't about this concept, but rather about parents (and even the Chinese government) setting time limits for how long kids can play games. Just because a trope is repeatedly used even in the most notable game does not make it notable. The only cites this article uses are to user-edited entries about specific games and never non-trivially covering the article's subject. Easily fails WP:GNG. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but possibly Redirect to Glossary of video game terms where the basic concept could be mentioned. It already mentions the related Time attack. Over all the general concept of a "time limit" specific to video games is unlikely to have any direct in-depth reliable secondary coverage. -- ferret (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In video games, the phrase "Time Limit" has exactly the same meaning that it does in other contexts. There isn't a "Video game terminology" specific meaning or definition. The sources in the article are just examples of time limits being used in a way that you would understand completely even if you were learning about video games for the first time. If the article is kept, it should be renamed "Time Limits in Video Games" to avoid the implication that there's a new concept under discussion here. ApLundell (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. Fails the GNG. As pointed out above, the concept of time limit in a ivdeo game is no different than a time limit for anything else, say a test or a project.^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per others, there is no specific video game definition for this phrase._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The concept of time limits in video games originated in arcade games (obviously to keep players from staying on a game indefinitely on one continuous play/one quarter). This concept leaked over to console games, where they eventually used it as a filler, but in some cases to provide a challenge to players. If a viable article should exist on video game time limits, one needs to start with arcade games. --MuZemike 03:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The real bitch here is that it is WP:COMMONKNOWLEDGE to even casual gamers that time limits are a frequent video game component, as much as enemies, extra lives, final bosses, and continues, yet for some reason I couldn't find coverage on it. I'll admit that I didn't get very extensive with my WP:BEFORE searches, so if someone wants to tell me what I'm doing wrong, I'd like to know. However, the fact that not even a self-published blog about the concept instantly appeared when I searched "time limit video games" should show you the severity of the topic's lack of notability. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge to Time limit There is pretty good academic sourcing to support an article:

• von Ahn, Luis; Dabbish, Laura (2008-08-01). "Designing games with a purpose". Communications of the ACM. 51 (8): 58–67. doi:10.1145/1378704.1378719. ISSN 0001-0782.

Specifically, the "Increase Player Enjoyment" section, there are additional in-line references as well, which I have not evaluated

• Yildirim, Irem Gökçe (2016-05-07). "Time Pressure as Video Game Design Element and Basic Need Satisfaction". Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI EA '16. San Jose, California, USA: Association for Computing Machinery: 2005–2011. doi:10.1145/2851581.2892298. ISBN 978-1-4503-4082-3.
• Poulsen, Anders; Sonntag, Axel (2019-02-19). "Focality is Intuitive - Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Time Pressure in Coordination Games" (PDF). ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Possibly this could be all be discussed in the main Time limit article in a "In gaming" section, but I feel that is more of an editorial decision. Jumpytoo Talk 22:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest ruling leaders by population[edit]

List of largest ruling leaders by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Interesting topic but may not meet WP:NLIST. Cannot find any reliable sources that discuss this topic in general. The list is presently made up of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Huh??? No, totally ridiculous synthesis. If you're combining current and former populations, you'd also need every former Chinese and Indian leader too.... It's merely a coincidence that Aso's one year in office was also when Japan's population peaked, no relevance to the others listed whatsoever. Reywas92^Talk 14:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As above. The title is also ridiculous, these are not the largest leaders, but the leaders of the largest countries. If they meant what they said the Kings (and Queens: remember Salote in 1953?) of Tonga would be right up there. Athel cb (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NLIST: reliable sources have not taken note of this rather arbitrary grouping. And, of course, it's pure WP:SYNTH, which is an independent reason to delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:SYNTH, and consequentially woefully incomplete: for example, Joko Widodo of Indonesia (pop. 2.71×10⁸, fourth biggest in the present-day world) is not listed, and the listing of Li Keqiang instead of Xi Jinping for the People's Republic of China is questionable as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - You might as well just have a list of largest countries by population, which we already do, but with the countries' leaders' names by them. Completely redundant list. --MuZemike 02:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly WP:OR. Ajf773 (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a clear example of WP:OR. In practice, it is a (woefully incomplete) list of countries by peak population with an additional column for the head of government (which is not necessarily the "correct" choice of leader, as LaundryPizza03 noted above). One suspects that e.g. Kublai Khan would qualify for inclusion, but historical population figures are of course notoriously difficult to estimate and the margins of error are huge. Estimates from different authors often vary significantly (see e.g. here). The practical upshot of this is that collecting estimates from different sources and using them to create a ranked list inevitably results in a WP:SYNTH mess; the only way to construct an article like this properly is to use a high-quality source which has collated the information in a systematic way (i.e. something along the lines of what The Oxford World History of Empire does for ranking empires by population as a percentage of the world population). Absent such a source, this is fundamentally a non-starter. TompaDompa (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IFit (brand)[edit]

IFit (brand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG, with pseudo-references that are PR pieces and/or passing mentions. I note the declaration by a paid editor in compliance with Wikipedia policies, and they have contributed via edit requests. Nonetheless I conclude that this is WP:ADMASQ, the more so since my WP:BEFORE only revealed similar sourcing Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete along with the related IFIT Health & Fitness -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFIT Health & Fitness. -- it's essentially the same company; there is no possible justification for two separate articles except the desire of the company or the paid editor to advertise as widely as possible. A I have no confidence from discussions with the editor over several articles that they will make improvements The only other way they'd get improved is if I or some other charitable editor here did it, and I certainly am not going to work on articles other people get paid for, at least not unless it's an article so important and so interesting that I'd work on it of my own accord-- and this one is neither. I am not just willing, but eager, to teach volunteers how to edit--it's one of the main satisfactions of WP. I have sometimes as an exception been willing to help a basically competent paid editor who does not know the WP conventions, if they actually take my advice. That's not the situation here--the AfCs on which I and Timtrent have commented are no better for the advice we've been giving. I don't think I should be the admin who does it, but we should also consider a block for NOTHERE. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I endorse DGG's comment about the editor, who does not engage with advice despite appearing to engage with advising editors. I support at the very least a warning for WP:NOTHERE, with consideration for a block. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was the original creator of the article back in 2015 and thought this was going to become a new standard like Fitbit. This never happened. Some of the information in this article may be saved and merged with IFIT Health & Fitness, if appropriate.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry (Anjora)[edit]

College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry (Anjora) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It exists. Though we tend to keep secondary/tertiary education providers, they do need to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. I couldn't establish that it does, but am aware there is a language barrier. I couldn't identify a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HIV Cohorts Data Exchange Protocol[edit]

HIV Cohorts Data Exchange Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't appear to meet GNG. PepperBeast (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Taylor[edit]

Marlon Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Note, prior AfD's were not about this individual. This particular college athlete meets neither WP:COLLATH or WP:NBASKET. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Though this is 3rd nomination of this title, this current page is for the basketball player, while the earlier ones were for the actor.—Bagumba (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bagumba, thanks. I mentioned that in the nom, although not as eloquently as you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Onel5969: I can't even skim 2 sentences, because I missed it. LOL.—Bagumba (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG per [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 11:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, passes GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:G5. (non-admin closure) Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bawn[edit]

Anthony Bawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails GNG lacks coverage on reliable sources Zackdasnicker (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zackdasnicker (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see several good references from reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is the article deleted while there is an ongoing discussion? Weber1982 (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Icche Dana[edit]

Icche Dana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails WP:GNG Princepratap1234 (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Cannot find any sources to meet WP:TVSERIES or GNG.. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghore Pherar Gaan[edit]

Ghore Pherar Gaan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails WP:GNG Princepratap1234 (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]