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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meteor Storm[edit]

Meteor Storm (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 television film, lacking significant coverage from independent sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NFILM. I did some research (which was hard tbf as the title is generic) and only found wikis and databases (which are unreliable sources). Anonymous 7481 (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Draft. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For what? Geschichte (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is almost ten years old and unlikely to receive any further coverage or reviews, moving to draft instead of deletion just seems pointless in my view. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 05:02, 14 July 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 13:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kadir Akbulut (writer)[edit]

Kadir Akbulut (writer) (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 page has been created by the same user on all projects and feels like a cross-wiki PR piece. No independent and reliable sources cover the subject in detail: all of them are non-independent from the person. Also doesn't meet any criteria in WP:FILMMAKER: no sources, no new style, no notable plays written and no significant attention. It's a miracle this article has been up for this long. Parallel discussions on trwiki and nlwiki. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 18:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 18:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 18:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Deleted on the 2 projects stated above as a result of the discussions. ~Styyxie^{Talk? ^-^} 19:35, 16 July 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 13:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TSI: The Gabon Virus[edit]

TSI: The Gabon Virus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unable to find multiple reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of this novel. Fails WP:GNG, and has been tagged for this and lack of sources for 9 years (!!). pinktoebeans ^(talk) 14:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 14:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 14:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. Best you'll get is a few listings on retailers with user reviews. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete also couldn't find sources. FiddleheadLady (talk) 13:35, 12 July 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 13:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walking the Halls[edit]

Walking the Halls (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 television film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 16:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no coverage, fails NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not every Lifetime movie deserves an article. FiddleheadLady (talk) 13:44, 12 July 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 13:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Game Show[edit]

The Game Show (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 does not meet WP:GNG. The PROD in 2009 was removed with the claim that the show has had notable guests and that there was an article by g4tv, which is self-described WP:BLOG (The link appears to be permanently dead, but the URL contains the word blog). The 2014 AfD (ended as "No Consensus") also mentions that g4tv is not an independent source and that most of the notable guests on the show are from g4tv. I'm also pretty sure that notable guests don't determine whether an article has WP:SIGCOV anyway (i.e. WP:INHERIT). The Felicia Day article is also a blog and would be considered a primary source even if it wasn't due to WP:INTERVIEW. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I've spent a solid amount of time looking far and wide for sources on this show. Anything. I've searched the internet archive, the VG/RS reliable source searcher, just Google-- and I've been drawing blanks. I agree with TipsyElephant's analysis that this doesn't inherit notability from its notable guests, especially in this case. Seems clear-cut to me. Nomader (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 06:20, 17 July 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 WP:SNOW keep, following revisions and improvements to the article. BD2412 T 05:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volvo – The Game[edit]

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

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

Could be a redirect, but an editor insists on recreating. The current sourcing is either regurgitated press releases, primary, or non-reliable. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep WP:BEFORE seems to not have been performed at all in this case. The game has 5 critical reviews, as well as articles in Wired and CNET among others._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The keeping would be speedier if these reviews were added to the article.. Geschichte (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, also covered by TF1 (associated competition), and launch or pre-launch announcements by Rock Paper Shotgun [1], w:nl:Computer Idee [2], Motorsport Network [3], Gamereactor [4], w:it:Auto (periodico) [5]. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article has already been expanded with sources and additional sources have been provided above. NemesisAT (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Found three decent reviews of the subject in two reliable sources (per WP:VG/RS) in GameStar and Absolute Games [6] [7], and in a gaming magazine Giochi per il mio computer [8]. In addition to this, CNET and Wired coverage posted above is also non-trivial. I'm not impressed at all by the WP:ROUTINE and/or WP:PROMO pre-release bits mentioned by Alexis Jazz, but these five I mentioned are more than enough for a WP:GNG pass. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added two more reliable citations to the article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Jovanmilic97, I don't know every bit of policy from the top of my head. Routine is right I suppose, but I kinda doubt it's promo. Sites/magazines like that just write about stuff that they think will capture the attention of their audience. Advertorials exist but reliable sources generally mark those as such. This is just easy news and the "free game from Volvo" headline is sure to generate some views. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, see the added sources. /Julle (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amity International, Noida[edit]

Amity International, Noida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced, non-notable school. This article had substantially more content that was removed because it was promotional. This change didn't leave much more than a description of the function of different buildings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find anything except for brief trivial mentions in books about other stuff. There's also zero references in the article. So from what I can tell there's no guideline based reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely unsourced, the page creater doesn't cite a single source/citation and I'm unable to find any reliable source which proves the notability of this school. Nitesh003 (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna's Storm[edit]

Anna's Storm (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 television film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 23:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I searched for significant independant coverage and couldn't find any. Clovermoss (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Since this is a film from 2007, I ran a ProQuest search to see if there was any older coverage that wouldn't have Googled — but literally all I got was a tiny smattering of "film shot in town" from community hyperlocals in Abbotsford and a bunch of TV listings, which is not enough. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to verify that it existed — the notability test requires properly sourced evidence that the film would pass one or more WP:NFILM criteria, such as by winning notable film awards and/or having been reviewed by notable film critics. Bearcat (talk) 12:55, 16 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sharif D Rangnekar[edit]

Sharif D Rangnekar (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 - lacks in-depth independent coverage in reliable soruces. Also promotional, paid editing and autobiography concerns. Edwardx (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per WP:HEY and WP:Creative. There are many reviews of a book that the subject is written. There is also more to contribute for WP:BASIC like [9], [10] & [11]. Autobiographical editing and paid editing are very serious concerns but the subject seems to be notable. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Subject is notable but page should be rewritten. "Self promotion" is not allowed. Kevin19781 (talk) 01:14, 17 July 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. But the article is still in a very bad shape. Geschichte (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parimatch (company)[edit]

Parimatch (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Okay, I'll bite the bullet and take a stab... Promo piece on a betting company of no particular notability. References look plentiful but consist of non-RS sources, interviews, sponsorship announcements, press release regurgitations, etc., and at least a couple of articles about the CEO (which isn't what this article is about) — cannot see anything even remotely RS sigcov. Has been previously deleted via PROD and then restored. Nevertheless fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a case of WP:PROMO. This promotional article was created and edited by a number of undeclared paid editors who based the article upon promotional and unreliable sources so WP:CORPDEPTH is not passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looking at the article, not considering if there is UPE or not, there is good coverage in Men's Health and it's not only about the CEO, it does talk about the company too. Also, McGregor and Tyson have been ambassador's of the company and there is news on that. Webmaster862 (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This betting company is the biggest in CIS region and one of the biggest betting and gambling player in Europe. It's a leader in Ukraine in its niche as well as in a few other countries. The recent sponsorship with Juventus F.C and other major players in plenty of other sports (especially cyber one) contributes heavily to the company's notability. I've also added some new links and facts to improve the checkability of the page. Lakomyu Kusochek (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per WP:HEY and reasons above. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes WP:GNG and new sources were added.FiddleheadLady (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources have been added, and I think the contextualisation from Lakomyu Kusochek above is important. /Julle (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as new sources are enough for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:31, 18 July 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 22:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HD 2[edit]

HD 2 (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:NASTRO. The article makes no claim to notability and I could find no coverage that would imply notability. Lithopsian (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails notability per WP:NASTRO. None of the references provide substantial discussion of this star; they are just large data sources. I suspect this article was just made because it's the second entry in the HD catalogue. Was this article deleted before? The comments seem to indicate that. Praemonitus (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was previously deleted by PROD in Decemebr 2012. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Praemonitus (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I created the article to improve on the previous version, but the information I found does not prove notability for the star. 400Weir (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easily fails WP:NASTRO. Curbon7 (talk) 07:18, 12 July 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. Improvements have been made since nomination with consensus that they are sufficient to justify the article being retained. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shambhu[edit]

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

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

Created, moved from sandbox to main space, draftified, moved back to main space, all on the same day. I was about to draftily until I discovered that. ITls time at AFC iOS done. Now it's the turn of the full community at AfD. Please do not suggest re-draftification, it seems to be pointless with this history

Fails WP:GNG Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep. While this needs improvement, it seems like this a historical character (well, a legendary one, a Burmese folk hero). Under the name "Maung Pauk Kyaing" (the article has been moved since the AfD) I can see some mentions in Google Scholar. See [12] and [13]. I am having trouble finding some clear SIGCOV, but for example. [14] (1957 publication of the Burma Research Society · contains the sentence "I believe every one of us is familiar with the story of Maung Pauk Kyaing"). Keeping WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in mind, and that some sources may be in Burmese of other languages, I am leaning keep here. Please ping me if either better sources are found, or there is a coherent argument this needs a merge and redirect to a wider topic (such as a legend about him or such, if it already exists).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I changed to his correct Burmese name. The article should be kept per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved with the addition of references to multiple reliable sources by me that show that the subject is a very important legendary king of Myanmar. He is the most important key figure of Myanmar's founding myth. His legend prescribed in the former 10th grade history book by the Ministry of Education, Myanmar. There are many source about Maung Pauk Kyaing see Google Book result, Three Maxims in the Myth of Maung Pauk Kyaing from Hinthada University Research Journal, Pauk Kyaing Pagoda -[15]. Best Taung Tan (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

also to @Piotrus:. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY and agree with Taung Tan. The article has now SIGCOV to meet GNG. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article has been improved since nomination. /Julle (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thanks to ample improvements.Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:33, 18 July 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 TechCrunch#TechCrunch Disrupt. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TechCrunch Disrupt New York[edit]

TechCrunch Disrupt New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I think this is lacking encyclopedic content. It's a mere list of s series of exhibitions. I don't think it would even belong as content in the main article, so I'm not suggesting a merge. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yeah, this article self-evidently doesn't even come close to meeting WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. Comes across like someone made the article because they were bored, lol. Tautomers_{(T C)} 04:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or merge to Techcrunch at worst, Keep at best. Notable business people do seem to be common attendees and speakers at the events, and notable startups are even formed at the event, but I'm not so sure that's enough for an article about this. I doubt the article was made because the creator was bored, but the best coverage I could find was a post-2013 Newsweek article, this Forbes article about sexism at the event (which is a WP:FORBESCONTRIBUTOR piece anyway), Financial Times article about the same, CNBC piece talking about the Robinhood CEO speaking at the event about the Gamestop fiasco earlier this year, and this Los Angeles Times piece stating a startup won an award at the event. I'm not stating delete, however, because notable people have spoken at the event and it is an important part of a far-more notable topic. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to TechCrunch#TechCrunch Disrupt Hasn't even taken place in NY the last three years, so this is talking about a past event. Nate • (chatter) 23:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to TechCrunch#TechCrunch Disrupt not sufficiently notable independent from TechCrunch. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I pondered the redirect suggestions and even considered whether the AfD could be closed on that consensus, but then I considered that a redirect would not really serve any meaningful purpose. A natural redirection target would be something like TechCrunch Disrupt, however as that itself isn't even an article (redirects to the proposed target above) then I don't believe this should be an article, in any capacity. In essence, I would think that TechCrunch Disrupt should be an article before any regional variants are. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S. C. Sharma[edit]

S. C. Sharma (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 non-notable biography that is written like a resume than an actual BLP. It fails GNG as it is not written from a neutral point of view. For instance, "He has been distinguished invitees, Chief Guest, Guest of honor in various universities", "He has guided many Ph.D.'s. He has participated and organized many seminars and conferences." The article doesn't use independent sources as they all come from the schools this person works at or has spoken at in seminars and conferences. Notability is clearly not presented. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Relevant criteria to check here would be WP:Academic. If it would have qualified that, GNG doesn't need to be satisfied. But, he doesn't seem to fulfil any WP:Academic criterias either. His positions are not highest level administrative and I can't locate his GS profile to check if his work is highly cited in his field. If someone can prove otherwise, happy to change my vote. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the research articles cited in the article are not even from the same person: "Sharma, Prof Satish Chander" and "Sharma, Baldev R (1993)" and a book chapter? Fails WP:NPROF#1 clearly. None of the "Satish C. Sharma" in Microsoft Academic even match this person. --hroest 03:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It doesn't fail GNG because of it's tone - WP:DINC. That being said, it does fail WP:GNG and WP:NPROF nonetheless. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Absolutely zero reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:56, 15 July 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 Poznań University of Technology. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poznań University of Science and Technology[edit]

Poznań University of Science and Technology (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 such thing. There is Poznań University of Technology. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence for its existence. DuncanHill (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Poznań University of Technology. The odds are good this was the intended target anyway, and the name is used, if rarely: [16]. Ping User:DuncanHill so they can reconsider their delete vote. Ps. In all honestly, while I am not fond of redirecting without discussion, this is the case where I'd support skipping AfD and redirecting to to the target the nominator has identified already (the name is used, the correct target seems obvious, why discuss this here?).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like the idea of propagating wrong names via Wikipedia. Especially keeping in mind that there are quite a few universities, museums, awards, etc, with very similar names. And it is not even "university" in Polish, it is Politechnika Poznańska. Lembit Staan (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lembit Staan: Wrong names should not be mentioned in the article unless they are popular enough, but redirects are useful. Someone looking for the wrong term will be guided to the correct one rather then left puzzled. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Piotrus: It's not just a "wrong name", it claims to be in a city a hundred km from the real university. It should be deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it becomes a redirect, any errors within it will be gone. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

          @BarrelProof Ah, I missed the part about Kalisz. Well, it's possible the creator had in mind some school in Kalisz, or a department or campus; I could speculate. Anyway, the first GScholar link is for a professor at the PUT, some foreign authors miscredited the name of his workplace. I still think redirecting is the best solution. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect with an explicit ((R from incorrect name)). Thirteen years of an unsourced and inaccurate one-sentence stub!? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:17, 17 July 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 Central Philippine University#Student life as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Central Philippine University Bahandi Singers[edit]

Central Philippine University Bahandi Singers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fail WP:GNG, promotion The Banner talk 17:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I am utterly unable to find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, the best available is already in the article, and that is not enough to demonstrate notability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Central Philippine University#Student life. Fails WP:MUSICBIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:20, 14 July 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 University of the City of Manila#Student life. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PLM Rondalla[edit]

PLM Rondalla (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 The Banner talk 17:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that meets general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to University of the City of Manila#Student life. Fails WP:MUSICBIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:22, 14 July 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 University of the Philippines#Culture, sports and traditions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines Concert Chorus[edit]

University of the Philippines Concert Chorus (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, promotion The Banner talk 17:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to University of the Philippines#Culture, sports and traditions. Fails WP:MUSICBIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:23, 14 July 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 Adventist University of the Philippines. Anyone is free to include some content to the target article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 17:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adventist University of the Philippines Ambassadors[edit]

Adventist University of the Philippines Ambassadors (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 The Banner talk 17:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Adventist University of the Philippines. Fails WP:MUSICBIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yumiko Aoyagi[edit]

Yumiko Aoyagi (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 television writer. Has a string of credits on some notable shows, but has not herself attracted much independent coverage in reliable English or Japanese sources. Popcornfud (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Popcornfud (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am persuaded by Michitaro argument in the previous AfD that she has coverage in offline sources to meet WP:CREATIVE. Jumpytoo Talk 19:41, 18 July 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. This list presented no sources, so there was no verifiable content to merge. ✗plicit 23:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of guests on The Bill[edit]

List of guests on The Bill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced article regarding BLPs. The first section is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation, so does not belong on Wikipedia. Since the second section is not large enough to warrant a standalone list, it could be merged into the notable guest stars section of the main characters list if the entries become sourced. – DarkGlow • 16:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 16:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 16:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 16:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 16:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unreferenced BLP list. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — per rationale by DarkGlow. Celestina007 (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree that this is unencyclopedic list that does not belong on Wikipedia. What counts as a notable guest appearance is almost impossible to define and in any case this list is basically trivia. Dunarc (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cruft with no real value. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Clearly this is going to be deleted so is there any way that the information contained within this article could be included in another article? Rillington (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment reply There is the notable guest stars section of the main characters list which the guest stars section could be merged into with sourcing. – DarkGlow (he/they) • 17:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to List of The Bill characters#Notable guest stars, since that's a good target for searches and any existing backlinks. !voting this over a plain ol' redirect vote because we shouldn't retain low-quality BLP content in the page history, even if it's not particularly controversial BLP content. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 02:50, 13 July 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 15:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of regular The Bill actors who have appeared in other roles[edit]

List of regular The Bill actors who have appeared in other roles (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 non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation that is only cited to IMDb. The IMDb sourcing is bad enough on its own per the guideline, but this list concerns BLPs. – DarkGlow • 16:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 16:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 16:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 16:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 16:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Poorly sourced, indiscriminate list. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't share OP's concern about WP:BLP (most cast lists and actor filmographies are not cited, tbh) but this is unencyclopedic fancruft. Perhaps someone somewhere has noted that a number of regulars had previously appeared in one-off roles, but that alone wouldn't justify a full list. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cruft with no real value. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a huge amount of fancruft regarding this show. The other week I boldly WP:BLAR'd about 600kB from four separate sublists of in-universe character bios (1, 2, 3, 4). This is yet another example of that, full of poorly-sourced OR. Delete. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 02:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No indepth sources available. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:13, 15 July 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 deleted. Geschichte (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anis Jerbi[edit]

Anis Jerbi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Declined twice at draft then copied and pasted over. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE due to a complete lack of coverage from reliable, independent sources. It is also an WP:AUTOBIO, which, while not completely in violation of our policies, is highly frowned upon. Main claim to notability seems to be sending a painting to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez but I don't think that that's a criterion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tunisia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was unable to find any coverage of the artist. Doesn't meet WP:NARTIST, WP:BASIC, or WP:GNG. Schazjmd (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An obvious fail, doesn't pass WP:GNG as there are no reliable sources at all. Curiocurio (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Close to WP:G11 territory. Otherwise fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Eternal Shadow Talk 17:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletethis is G11, I think. Linkedin is the only source. I'll G11 it, to see if we can save some time. --- Possibly ☎ 02:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that worked. --- Possibly ☎ 03:34, 12 July 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 15:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An Angel Named Billy[edit]

An Angel Named Billy (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 film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. Can't find any more than 1 brief mention in a news source. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails NFILM, no coverage outside of comprehensive database entries. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 01:24, 13 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Weekly[edit]

Travel Weekly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a news website, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for web content. Of the fourteen footnotes here, fully 12 are self-published by the company itself, on its own website or its social networking profiles -- and while the other two are to a real (albeit limited circulation) publishing trade magazine, they both read like thinly veiled rewrites of the company's own press releases rather than actual independent journalism. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this company from having to get over WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on coverage in sources independent of its own self-created web presence. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Per painstaking detailed explanation by Bearcat. Celestina007 (talk) 17:24, 11 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Mayo Cowan[edit]

Katherine Mayo Cowan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Biography of a mayor, not adequately sourced as passing our notability criteria for mayors. As always, Wikipedia does not hand mayors an automatic notability freebie just for being mayors per se -- making a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not done by offering summary verification that she existed, it's done by writing and sourcing a substantive article about her political impact: specific things she accomplished in the mayor's chair, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects she had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. (And no, just stating that she was the first woman mayor of her own city does not automatically pass that in and of itself either.) But this just verifies the start and end of her term in office, and then devotes more time to covering her wedding than it does to saying anything noteworthy or substantive about the significance of her mayoralty, which is not how you make a mayor notable. Bearcat (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources are available that do more than state "she was the first woman mayor of her own city", e.g. Cape Fear Unearthed: Wilmington’s Trailblazing Women (Wilmington Star News, 2020, "...Katherine Mayo Cowan, Wilmington’s first (and still only) woman to be mayor..."), and additional sources appear to be available in contemporaneous newspaper records, (noted in a blog), so with the multiple independent and reliable sources in the article and additional sources that can be incorporated, WP:BASIC notability appears to be sufficiently supported. Beccaynr (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are sources that prove her notability at the time. Plus being the first female mayor of a major city seems to be a substantial legacy given it was 1924. FiddleheadLady (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete First x to do y is not a sign of notability. Especially when she did so as a succesor to a spouse. The sourcing is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional sources that support her WP:SUSTAINED, WP:BASIC notability include: 100 for 100th: Women who have shaped Wilmington (Wilmington Star-News, 2020), 106 women who have made a difference in Wilmington (Wilmington Star-News, 2021) - this modern source is making WP:SECONDARY analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources, and Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Beccaynr (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BASIC. Djflem (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep added materials to improve documentation, included later material showing her career in federal government. Cowan's tenure as mayor was short, but was considered significant at the time in both Wilmington and around the country because she was a woman holding office right after the 19th amendment passed, in a state that did not support its ratification.Musehist (talk) 00:20, 19 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

House of Today[edit]

House of Today (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 and promotional . The references are advertisements or promotional writeups or notices. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm... not sure about this nomination. Vogue (magazine), Architectural Digest, The New York Observer and Wallpaper (magazine) typically separate editorial and advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs)

• Delete - Per DGG, this is promotional non notable WP:ADMASQ. Celestina007 (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Typically, but not always. It would be considered a major success of any PR agent to get a promotional mention placed there. DGG ( talk ) 09:46, 12 July 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 Children in Need 2014. ✗plicit 12:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superheroes Unite for BBC Children in Need[edit]

Superheroes Unite for BBC Children in Need (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 television film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 10:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Children in Need 2014 as a part of that year's appeal. Nate • (chatter) 23:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - as suggested above. I do not think this was notable enough to have its own article, but merging it with the article for the appeal it was part of seems sensible. Dunarc (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amrun Mubarok[edit]

Amrun Mubarok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:GNG failure is far more important than 17 mins of football four years ago. Google News only contains passing mentions from the one match that he played and a couple of squad listings. Nothing better found in an Indonesian source search. Best source is Bola, which contains 3 sentences about him being promoted from U21 to senior Bali squad. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what GS said. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. The Wikipedia community consensus is clear: WP:NFOOTBALL does not supersede WP:GNG, all footballers must have the significant coverage to pass the general notability guideline regardless of how many professional matches they have appeared in. Alvaldi (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep passes NFOOTY and GNG IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Where exactly is the significant coverage needed to pass GNG? Joseph2302 (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madan Gowri[edit]

Madan Gowri (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 notability, fails WP:GNG. minor role only in one movie fails WP:NACTOR. DMySon (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the subject is mostly a youtuber with 5 million subscribers known widely in one state of Tamil Nadu, India and there is a lot of news sources in Tamil language about him. He is certainly notable from the Tamil sources. I could find three sources with WP:SIGCOV in English.^[1][2][3]SUN EYE 1 13:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Per rationale by DMySon I spoke to my teacher Barkeep49 about how vague WP:ENT is, I would want a system where if xyz has so so amount of followers they have a cult following and are notable, just saying “possesses a cult following” is nebulous and counter productive. Celestina007 (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Hindustan times and Deccan article - even though are reliable sources, can't be counted as independent since they mostly contain content that is being said by the subject and are not discussing him beyond an opening introduction. If we were to be liberal, we would have considered these for WP:BASIC. According to me, The News Minute source still has some value (though I have always doubted the reliability of it). At the current moment, where it stands, it doesn't have enough for WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Might become notable in future. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR pretty easily. The sources aren't really true independent, more interview than article - I'm just not seeing enough for WP:GNG. Ravensfire (talk) 17:36, 17 July 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 09:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kemi M. Doll[edit]

Kemi M. Doll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Assistant prof, won some early career awards, not convinced passes WP:NPROF. Maybe WP:TOOSOON? Kj cheetham (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe this is another WikiEd contribution... Definitely way TOOSOON here.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete clearly TOOSOON for someone very early in their career, see also MA profile. --hroest 03:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even close to meeting the academic notability reuirements. The sourcing also totally fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 13 July 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 09:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Singh Jadon[edit]

Ankit Singh Jadon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't find anything about him outside of LinkedIn, Facebook etc. I imagine cricket umpires need to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCRIC and this person doesn't according to searches. Not a single sports news mention let alone anything in-depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable sport bio. Unreferenced BLP, only CCS is umpiring in the IPL but that's probably possibly, just enough to mean it would not qualify as 'speedy' (A7). Eagleash (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete No indication of notability, fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's doesn't meet WP:GNG. Unreferenced BLP. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete — no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable individual who fails CRINs inclusion guidelines for match officials. Besides, I think this is a hoax as CricketArchive has no record of a scorer by this name. StickyWicket (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and others comments. Non notable cricket scorer. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable sportsperson. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Scorers are not inherently notable (even if they score in notable competitions), and no evidence they meet GNG or even actually scored those matches. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious delete - I suspect this is autobiographical. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO --Assyrtiko (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable and fails WP:GNG Nitesh003 (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails all criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBirdsShedTears (talk • contribs) 09:21, 16 July 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 09:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arshi Naqvi[edit]

Arshi Naqvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I don't see how this passes WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. It's had a speedy deletion tag added and removed already, and been moved in and out of draft space, and from the original editor's talk page, there's mention of COI. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - can't find even one decent source about this person. I can't find anything outside of his own social media. Is this a hoax? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Most Popular Name as Arshi Naqvi He is the first Muslim Professor to get the Members of West Bengal School Service Commission Honourable Member of West Bengal School Service Commission (S.R) since 2012.[1] He is the first Muslim professor of Urdu Subject who is appointed as an honourable member of WBSSC. He is also one of the Honarable members of Boards of Studies (UG) in University of Calcutta and as a life Member of Asiatic Society, Kolkata.He works as a Associate Professor In the Department of Urdu Kidderpore College Kolkata since 1998 and also attached with the Department of Urdu in University of Calcutta as a Guest Lecturer since 2012. In 1998, He started working as a lecturer at Kidderpore College. His first edited book was published in 2006 entitled Wahshat Shanasi from the Department of Urdu, Kidderpore College. Wahshat Kalkatvi was the renowned Urdu Poet of Bengal also know as Ghalib E Sani. His Second book was "Wahshat Kalkatvi : Mushaheer-e-Adab ki Nazron mein". He also edited the book entitled "Rubaiyat E Mir Taqi Mir" in 2018.

He published his Thesis entitled as "Wahshat Kalkatvi: Hayat aur Karname". This is the first thesis which was awarded from University of Calcutta on the above mentioned Topic in 2012.

He Organised two day national Seminar from the Department of Urdu Kidderpore College, Kolkata sponsored by the West Bengal Urdu Academy under his Headship in 2018

He attended and delivered Lectures and present his Paper in different literary programs and seminars in Kolkata. He was awarded as "Maulvi Abdul Haq Award 2017" in 2019 from The West Bengal Urdu Academy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by QayamHadi (talk • contribs)

And yet there is not a single reliable source for any of the above. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Spam. JavaHurricane 12:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per rationale by both Kj cheetham and JavaHurricane. Celestina007 (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No indication of WP:NPROF. WP:NAUTHOR is somewhat plausible, but would require reviews, which are not evident (and which I did not find). Little sign of WP:GNG. WP:TNT looks relevant. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no notable position held, no notable contribution to relevant field, and no SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBirdsShedTears (talk • contribs) 09:29, 16 July 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 13:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Truth in Motion[edit]

Truth in Motion (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 film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 01:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails NFILM. I did find two articles [17] [18] but the former seem questionable and would not help satisfy NFILM regardless. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Anonymous 7481. Insufficient coverage. Fizconiz (talk) 20:06, 16 July 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 09:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tinye So[edit]

Tinye So (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 film, lacking significant coverage and other indications of notability per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 01:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 18:04, 6 July 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 13:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dobson, Kentucky[edit]

Dobson, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Location about which I can find basically nothing about, I'm not sure that it meets WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. WP:RENNICK's 365-page directory of Johnson County places has a single passing mention to the Dobson (rr) Sta. when talking about the post office of Swamp Branch, Kentucky. Topos show a couple buildings and an oil well next to the railroad, and searching is primarily bringing up last names and basically nothing about this as a location. This one doesn't seem notable, despite the GNIS entry. Hog Farm _Talk 05:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Per rationale by Hog Farm. Celestina007 (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I also can't find that this was ever a "populated community" by any definition, fails GEOLAND, my attempts most definately failed to establish GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:41, 12 July 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 10:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Malcolm Everett[edit]

Kevin Malcolm Everett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NPOL doesn't afford presumptive notability to local councilors, and a WP:BEFORE search finds no coverage that would meet WP:BASIC/the WP:GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass any default notability criteria for politicians, and one source is never enough for those who do not pass such criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 13 July 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 09:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar Balloon Festival[edit]

Qatar Balloon Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

One time even so far, the only independent source was removed by someone because it didn't exist. Seems to be too soon to be notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. The only independent source I could find was from one of Qatar's local newspapers. I don't see any lasting significance so it fails WP:NEVENTS. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as appears non-notable. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment al-Jazeera covered it [19] but they are technically local press here. The article is low-quality and promotional; I expect that if the second edition occurs as planned later this year there will easily be enough coverage to justify an article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:21, 17 July 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. ✗plicit 10:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 in East Africa[edit]

2021 in East Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Each country and territory has their own year pages. This seems to be a random combination of content forked from some of these year pages. I don't see any point in having year in region pages if they are just going to include copyedits from other existing wiki articles. Dan the Animator 00:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Dan the Animator 00:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Dan the Animator 00:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Dan the Animator 00:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is my first AfD so really sorry if I made any mistake. Dan the Animator 00:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This should likely be a broader discussion, containing 2021 in South America, 2021 in Southern Africa, 2020 in East Africa etc. I am leaning towards keep, but I don't have a justification for that position, so I am not going to !vote for now. BilledMammal (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that. I didn't know whether it was a good idea to put them all together for deletion. Probably the rest could be put all together though for a later AfD depending on the outcome of this one. Thanks for your comment by the way! Dan the Animator 16:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There's plenty of articles that have similar scopes and it's encyclopedic. The content may be "random", but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted, just improved. Clovermoss (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the article as-is has all the problems described by the nominator. However, there is be the potential for an article which covers 'regional' events. The article is also part of a large class of similarly-scoped articles, which should probably be discussed in an RFC on a WikiProject page (possibly Current Events). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:25, 17 July 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 Start-Up (South Korean TV series). This is one of the AFDs where there isn't a clear numerical majority among the different votes that were cast, but where one of the sides of the argument is significantly more compelling and policy-based than the other. The majority of the Keep voters argue that the the song meets the requirements of WP:NSONG because it reached the top 100 on Billboard. While this is true, consider that NSONG is a secondary notability guideline that states that "Songs and singles are probably notable if..." In other words, NSONG is a way of quickly estimating whether a single or song is notable, but it is not the true test. The true test is WP:GNG, which is the primary guideline that requires the presence of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. No one has provided evidence in this discussion that such sources exist, therefore we have to presume that the song is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. I've decided to redirect the article instead of delete it, partially to keep the history visible in case anyone wants to merge any of this material into other articles, and partially in case new sources are discovered later that would allow the restoration of this article. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Future (Red Velvet song)[edit]

Future (Red Velvet song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Although released as a single, the song does not have substantial coverage in multiple reliable published sources that are independent of the subject. Sources like [20] and [21] constitute press releases, [22] is a retailer, and [23] is the website of the company which produced the music video of the soundtrack. The song has appeared on three charts but has not been certified or received major accolades. The fact that the song has charted is not by itself reason for a standalone article since notability requires independent evidence, and charting alone does not indicate that a song is notable. As an alternate to deletion, I am fine with a redirect to the drama article Start Up. Ashleyyoursmile! 14:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ashleyyoursmile! 14:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Doesn't have enough coverage so probably Redirect will be the best option. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 15:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hi! Firstly, I beg to disagree with the statements and comments regarding the citation or reference use. Firstly, the two aforementioned references are still reliable. I haven't seen any guidelines regarding the use of "constitute press releases". Secondly, the next two references which are Melon and the official website are still reliable. When it comes to Melon, this has been widely used in a lot of Korean-related song and album articles (mostly for "Credits and personnel" part). The official website on the other hand, states the same information and is the same with Melon as well. If Melon is not available as a reference for use then that does mean that a lot of articles have violated on what to use as a reference. Next, I didn't know that a music-related (song or album) articles should have "been certified or received major accolades" for it to be notable enough. I disapprove of this statement as it doesn't go well with what WP:NSONG has stated:

Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful.

1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)
2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Latin Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.

The first and third criteria has already been satisfied. It doesn't state that ALL criteria should be satisfied in order for the article to be NOTABLE. Lastly, the article is not a stub. Despite being an article with only few references, it has been promoted and is currently a "Good article". Thank you. :) ReVeluv02 (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ReVeluv02, thank you for taking time to comment on this discussion. It appears that you have misinterpreted my deletion rationale. I am not questioning the reliability of the references used in the article. Most of the sources used comply with WP:KO/RS. But reliability has got little to do with notability. Your argument fails to prove the fundamental criterion of notability of a song which is: Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries or reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. It specifically mentions that any reprints of press releases cannot be used to demonstrate notability, and the sources you have used or that exist do not qualify as significant coverage. Secondly, any song may meet the criteria of being released independently as a recording or may appear on a few charts, but that again may indicate that the song is notable when a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful. Meeting any of these criteria does not mean that such an article should be kept especially when there isn't enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. That the article is GA doesn't mean its notability cannot be reassessed. I cannot see broad coverage which is a requirement for a GA. --Ashleyyoursmile! 18:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ashleyyoursmile Thank you for clearing things up. I'm sorry if I sounded rude on my comments regarding the deletion. :) It never is my intention to be rude to you. Anyway, once again thank you for the reply. ReVeluv02 (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReVeluv02, there is no need to apologise. You have said what you think is correct and there is nothing wrong with that. We are here to discuss on whether a standalone article is appropriate in this case and I'm thankful that you have provided a suitable rationale. Others may agree or disagree with our arguments. Ashleyyoursmile! 05:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the song reaching three different charts, combined with the soundtrack usage and music video release, indicate that it is properly notable. --K. Peake 08:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Kyle Peake, I see where you are coming from, but according to WP:NSONGS, if a song has charted then it only indicates that the song may be notable, not that it is notable. Also, it does not say anything about soundtrack or music video release contributing to notability. Ashleyyoursmile! 09:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sources presented are interested third parties. Good for the background but not for showing notability. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:NSONG per Reveluv's and Kyle Peake's arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SBKSPP, sorry but the article fails WP:SIGCOV, there is lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. All references used in the article are either PR or self-published. And obviously that doesn't contribute towards notability. Per WP:NSONGS. charting does not necessarily make a song notable, especially when a a search for significant coverage in reliable independent sources is unsuccessful. Having a music video or a being a soundtrack doesn't have anything to do with notability, at least that's not something that WP:NSONGS addresses, unless I'm missing something. Ashleyyoursmile! 13:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I understand that it takes a lot hard work to create and bring an article to a good article status. But then we can't keep on creating article for all singles from TV series' soundtracks. We should also see whether it will interest readers (Pageviews Analysis). Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 15:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think my above reasoning is not right, considering there are many articles on wikipedia which would not qualify this. -ink&fables «talk» 04:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• -ink&fables, may I ask which policy are you referring to in your rationale? Ashleyyoursmile! 17:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ashleyyoursmile: I'm not referring to as such policy. I discovered articles like Give You My Heart, Stay with Me, and All About You; all of which do not qualify the criteria you have quoted. So in general, I think, if deletion is considered then these Start-Class article should be deleted first. I am sorry if I made a mistake, I didn't intend to do so. I am not regular to discussions like these. -ink&fables «talk» 19:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The song reached the top 100 on Billboard. The article needs more sources to comply with WP:GNG but to be ranked on national or significant music or sales charts is indicative of notability, per WP:NSONG. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A.WagnerC, fyi, the Billboard chart here is not the main chart but genre-specific. Nonetheless, per WP:NSONG, charting may indicate notability, but doesn't necessarily make a song notable especially when a search for coverage in reliable independent sources is unsuccessful. So retaining this article just because it has charted on three charts, one of which is not even the main chart, doesn't seem reasonable. As someone who works extensively on Korean-language articles, I can say that there are no sources that exist that constitute WP:SIGCOV, failing WP:GNG, as I have explained in my deletion rationale. Feel free to provide sources to show how this song has significant coverage to meet the notability guidelines. Ashleyyoursmile! 19:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability requires multiple reliable sources which discuss the song in detail. None of the arguments for "Keep" argue that such sources exist; one for "Delete" questions the quality of those used and another is quite certain that other RS are not out there. Charts alone cannot meet the notability requirements. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Start-Up (Original Television Soundtrack). I do not see evidence of significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. Charting alone is not enough to prove notability so I disagree with the keep arguments above. I would recommend a redirect over an outright deletion though as this is a viable search term so it would be more beneficial to the reader. Aoba47 (talk) 19:22, 20 July 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 Eve Online#Gameplay. BD2412 T 05:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay of Eve Online[edit]

Gameplay of Eve Online (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 are very few articles about EVE's gameplay I could find to establish notability. Anything discussed in this article is already covered in EVE's own page. I do not see this article being able to rely on secondary reliable sources due to the lack of coverage. Ardenter (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Ardenter (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ardenter (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If we are going to have a separate gameplay article, it absolutely needs to show strong sourcing from reliable 3rd party sources (eg Gameplay of Overwatch). Perhaps this could be done with Eve but knowing how it gets covered, I don't think it will see what we can do for Overwatch. --Masem (t) 04:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect / Delete. Target is Eve Online#Gameplay, which coincidently seems to be more up to date and more complete anyways. This is an unnecessary fork at this point. -- ferret (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the appropriate article. versacespaceleave a message! 05:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - there is little way this article passes GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - not a common or necessary point for splitting into a separate article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Eve Online#Gameplay. This article is WP:CONTENTFORKING and the discussed topic (gameplay) is not notable enough to have its own separate article. The main article Eve Online can cover all necessary info about the gameplay. Wario-Man ^talk 15:53, 14 July 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) Iamfarzan (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jagiellonia Białystok II[edit]

Jagiellonia Białystok II (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 NFOOTY Iamfarzan (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Iamfarzan (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Iamfarzan (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per "teams that have played in the national cup (...) generally meet WP:GNG criteria" (via Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability). CzeCze11 (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - has played in national cup so considered notable; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 12:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Jagiellonia Białystok. This needs sources that show coverage in media or such, not just statistics pages. I looked but all I saw was few mentions of some hooligan activities during their matches. A big WP:REDFLAG is that the pl wiki doesn't even have a redirect for this, just a tiny section at pl:Jagiellonia_Białystok#Jagiellonia_II_Białystok. I'd also suggest that we should be wary of sources cited (those unreferenced stat pages) - they may have errors and might be confusing this entity with the main JB club. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes notability criteria, plays in Polish Cup competitions.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]