< October 31	November 02 >

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kota Johor Lama Museum[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. No gnews hits for English, only 1 gnews hit for Malay name LibStar (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several improvements have been made since being nominated, so the article should be given another look.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KeepFound a couple of government links [1], [2] Mtpos (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Looks notable enough. Just need to add some more sources. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamJayYas (talk • contribs) 10:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are enough sources to show notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 22:07, 8 November 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 12:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Eugenio Marsaglia[edit]

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

A reasonably senior WP:ROTM businessman, doing his job and playing polo. Fails WP:BIO. The sole references, apart from circular references to Wikipedia articles, are passing mentions and primary sources. This article was created today as a copy and paste move to mainspace from Draft:Stefano Eugenio Marsaglia which had been rejected previously Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage and fairly ROTM businessman as per nom. While he belongs to a national order from the Italian presidency, it's only the second-highest civilian honor and he is at the lowest and most-distributed rank of the order ("Cavaliere"). According to the Italian presidency, 11,270 people alone have been awarded his rank in this order, and 334,349 have been part of one of the orders. I think that belonging to that order at his rank is not particularly notable per se. Pilaz (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale by Timtrent, I don’t see GNG not Anybio met. Celestina007 (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Times Group#Times Business Solutions Limited. Sandstein 17:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SimplyMarry[edit]

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

Fails NWEB/NCORP. Most of the sources are from news sites associated with The Times Group which owns this portal, therefore not independent. An inspection of the independent sources that turned up on my BEFORE search showed only namedrops and routine coverage of the portal. M4DU7 (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of India's leading matrimonial sites as per this and this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Featuring in the top 10 of a couple of low quality websites is not enough to satisfy WP:NCORP. M4DU7 (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Times Internet#2012–2017: Early investments Per WP:CHEAP, as it's not on any top 10 lists any longer (the site is dead, along with 'forerunner' Times Soulmate). @Pharaoh of the Wizards:, the mention in the first source is simplymarry.org, and is a clear domain sponger counting on typos to get people on their site. Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Times Internet#2012–2017: Early investments Per WP:ATD, topic company fails the criteria of notability in its own right. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Times Group#Times Business Solutions Limited. Based on this source, TBSL seems to be the subsidiary that owned SimplyMarry.com so that would be the appropriate redirect target. I added a short blurb about the website in that section and don't feel there's anything more that needs to be merged. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:05, 9 November 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 01:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Musea[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I cannot find any useful sources with WP:BEFORE. It has been flagged as needing them since 2014 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France—-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — SIRS isn’t satisfied thus NCORP is automatically not met. Celestina007 (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom's mention of references being needed for that long of a time frame. If they were out there, they probably would have been found at this point. If they do exist, the article can be recreated with them, but as it is now, the subject is not notable and has not been proven to be notable. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:03, 7 November 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 01:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soni Pabla[edit]

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

Musician who died very young. No references. Was he noteable? Rathfelder (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not pass WP:NMUSIC. ––FormalDude talk 01:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless somebody can significantly improve the article. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one footnote, but this has been tagged for notability for almost a decade without ever having had any other sources added. To be fair, a person whose career ended 15 years ago might have had media coverage in his own time that wouldn't Google well now, so I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody with access to archived Indian media coverage can improve the article to demonstrate that he would actually pass WP:NMUSIC for something — but we don't keep poorly sourced articles just because it's possible that better sourcing might exist, we keep poorly sourced articles only if and when somebody can definitively prove that better sourcing absolutely does exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 2 November 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) LibStar (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Rankin[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. No significant third party coverage. Gnews comes up with a namesake who is a Guardian journalist. LibStar (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has entries in at least two Oxford reference books: The Oxford Companion to Australian Literature (2 ed.) and The Oxford Companion to Modern Poetry (2 ed.) Link: [3]https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100404170 Piecesofuk (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources have been added since the deletion nomination, I feel there is enough here to meet WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per WP:ANYBIO. Encyclopedia entries cited by Piecesofuk are dispositive. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:51, 4 November 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) LibStar (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Buckmaster[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. No significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Below is some of the resources available. They is enough out there. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Austlit lists 18 "Works About Author" [4]

Austlit lists 17 "Works About Their Works" [5]

National Library of Australia has a collection of cuttings [6]

A little bit in the Bulletin. [7]

Dugan, Michael (1990), "Charles Buckmaster: a memoir", Overland (119): 67–73, ISSN 0030-7416

Keep - his early death, and that of michael dransfield - created a literature in itself of reflecting on short lived and precious poets of the late 1960s. Google scholar, trove, and jstor have clear evidence of this.

JarrahTree 15:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A couple of entries in Oxford Reference books: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095533602 Piecesofuk (talk) 16:06, 2 November 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Society of Catastrophe Managers[edit]

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

Can't find anything that suggests notability. The page has no reliable sources + reads like PR. Devokewater ^(talk) 22:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Devokewater ^(talk) 22:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Devokewater ^(talk) 22:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Devokewater ^(talk) 22:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Devokewater ^(talk) 22:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Devokewater ^(talk) 22:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Devokewater ^(talk) 22:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Devokewater ^(talk) 22:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2008-08 ↻ restored ← 2008-08 ✗ G12

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 9 November 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 Hawiye. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gugundhabe[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Many of the references cited in the article do not refer to the article subject. Lacks significant coverage. At best, it should be returned to a redirect. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect. Because of the way Wikipedia works I was notified as the creator. But what I created was this to what was (2008) an article. But later Gyrofrog turned that into a redirect as well. I even restored the redirect. Leav it as such. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From what I recall (gracious, I have a teenager who's younger than some of this) "Gugundhabe" and "Gugudhabe" are different spellings for the same subject. Either way I'd say redirect to Hawiye, like it had been. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:25, 2 November 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 02:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Michael of Yugoslavia[edit]

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

Not notable, looks like deposed monarchy cruft. PatGallacher (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:NBIO and definitely fails WP:NPOL. Important to remember WP:NOTINHERETED. Current sources in the article are passing references or primary sources (the NYT piece actually kind of pokes fun at the Prince for being an inconsequential society figure: "How come he spells his name in French?") and don't give WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE does not uncover any sources but this source does says "as far as I have been able to ascertain, Prince Michael of Yugoslavia does not exist." I think that sums it up. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 19:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Karađorđević dynasty. Kathlene Smoot (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find some coverages to say that he meets WP:GNG. He involved in a notable scandal which provides him media attention [8] [9] and [10] [11]. This Bilan article [12] is an in-depth coverage about him. VocalIndia (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As someone from that general region, I can confidently say that this is not a person any decent number of people would recognize. Still, he was featured in B92 two weeks ago. He's a photographer and supposedly had some exhibition in South Korea. [13] --Killuminator (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Montfort school, Roorkee[edit]

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

May not pass WP:GNG. Search on Google News as per titled shows limited coverage of the school. – robertsky (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable school. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. tedder (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This school clearly isn't notable. There's one article in The Tribune India about a cricket tournament they were in, but it's not enough to establish notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:18, 3 November 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. No prejudice against merging this to Bettina L. Love. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 04:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abolitionist teaching[edit]

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

This is a 2019 neologism by college professor Bettina L. Love, who wrote a book (We Want to Do More Than Survive: Abolitionist Teaching and the Pursuit of Educational Freedom) and created an organization (the Abolitionist Teaching Network) that make use of the term. The term doesn't seem to have caught on yet; outside uses of the term are minimal and all seem to relate directly to Love. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N This article attempts to give credibility to the teaching method in one book by one author. The references that mention the method are the first two and both are primary. The rest are a form of WP:SYNTH to lend credibility to the topic. Even the book describing the teaching method does not have an article. Lightburst (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A possible alternative may be to selectively merge this into a section in Love's article, which does need some cleaning since it's got a bit of a WP:PUFFERY issue. I do see it covered on some university websites, typically in regards to Love herself as the term's creator. ([14], [15], [16], [17]) Other than that, I did see this study in Urban Education, but the references might be helpful. I will say that the book itself could likely warrant an article since I'm finding sourcing for it, but I also think that Love's page may be a better landing page for this at the moment if there isn't more coverage for the term as a whole. There's more wiggle room with covering the concept as a whole on her page as the term creator than there would be on a book page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually finding quite a bit out there. Of note is that the term "abolitionist pedagogy" is also frequently used. Right now I'm just putting everything in a "further reading" section, but I think that this topic could warrant its own article. It just needs to be cleaned up. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the article is worth keeping, I think the whole thing could use a rewrite: right now more than half of it is about general concepts like intersectionality, and the rest is nebulous statements like "Abolitionist teaching resides at the intersection between education, race, abolition and Black joy." Nowhere is the term "abolitionist teaching" actually defined, as far as I can tell. Reading between the lines, it seems to be a combination of social justice-based education and getting rid of tests and grades and so on; but if that's true, that would basically make it a synonym for critical pedagogy, which I think includes all of those concepts. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to look into it a bit more to get the finer details. Admittedly I was more looking for the term and if the paper(s) had some sort of description, as well as went into some depth, but I didn't read the sources for the actual meat (ie, so I could do any substantial re-writes). With this in mind, if it seems like it's more of a loosely defined subset of critical pedagogy that uses the same general overall framework, then it may be best as a subsection there and in the author's page. I don't really get as much time as I used to as far as article editing goes and this is one that would need more attention than say, my usual film or book article. I'll try to set aside some time to look at this. Mostly I'm just setting things out in case anyone else can jump in first. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply redirect to Bettina L. Love as a WP:ATD? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several valid options, no clear consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Because this a topic largely of interest to university professors, it seems most of the sources are paywalled in scholarly sources, but I am finding a lot of evidence that it is a term in use, especially when considered synonymously with "abolitionist pedagogy". From the first two pages of my library's search results, sources which use "abolitionist pedagogy": [18][19][20] Sources that use "abolitionist teaching" in their titles: [21][22]. Sources which state in their methods that they "draw from abolitionist teaching": [23][24][25] A useful review of Love's book: [26] That review also provides Love's definition of the term, "the practice of working in solidarity with communities of color while drawing on the [strategies] of abolitionists to eradicate injustice in and outside of schools" (2). The fact that most sources cite Love while using the term does not, to my mind, detract from the notability of the term: we still cite Bourdieu when we use the term cultural capital. I think fully contextualizing the idea might end up renaming the article "abolitionist pedagogy" (since that term emerged first) but it would take some research to see if it was appropriate, and "abolitionist teaching" also seems supported. I haven't read deeply on the topic, but I think it is a notable subset of/spinoff from critical pedagogy (as noted above) distinguished by its specifically US and Black focus, and its close links to trauma-informed pedagogy. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to suggest, as a preferred alternative to deletion, converting this into an articld about Love's book, which passes WP:NBOOK (I saw more than 2 reviews while skimming sources). I still slightly lean keep but think this is the next best option. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even cursory GScholar searches show that this is a new and expanding and vibrant field of study: [27], [28], [29]. These are significant papers in process or published in reliable scholarly journals and a WP:BEFORE should have found them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A brief literature search on JSTOR suggests that Abolitionist Teaching is a fairly new, but widely discussed sub-framework in Critical Pedagogy. It might be worth renaming the article to Abolitionist Pedagogy, which seems to be the more common name in use. CamAnders (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:33, 9 November 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. Happy to restore for the purpose of merging or drafitying, if desired. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 02:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abadir dynasty[edit]

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

Harar, a city in eastern Ethiopia, was purportedly founded by the semi-legendary medieval figure Abadir, who is also said to have united the Harari tribes and instated a central rule from Harar (see, e.g., here). A few centuries later (in 1520), Harar became the capital of the Adal Sultanate (ruled by the Walashma dynasty), flourishing for some time after that as the Sultanate of Harar. After the decline of Harar in the late 16th century, it was ruled by a number of disparate successor states such as the Imamate of Aussa and the Emirate of Harar until it was annexed by Egypt in 1875 and, passing by the hands of the British, finally became part of the Ethiopian Empire.

Now we have an article here that imagines that from the time of Abadir on (c. 1000-1300), and until the annexation by Egypt in 1875, Harar was ruled by something called the "Abadir dynasty" (a dynasty being a "a sequence of rulers from the same family", this would presumably refer to descendants of Abadir ruling in succession over Harar).

The article cites a plethora of sources, but as far as I can see, none that actually refer to this purported "Abadir dynasty" (some mention Abadir, and also mention some rulers over Harar, but these rulers are never said to be the descendants of Abadir, and the connection of a 'dynasty' is never made). Google scholar [30] only comes up with a Wikipedia mirror of an article to which the mention of an "Abadir dynasty" was added by the same editor who created this article. Google Books [31] comes up with sources presumably mentioning "Abadir" (the semi-legendary figure) and/or "dynasty" but gives no direct hits for "Abadir dynasty" (compare, e.g., "Walashma dynasty"). Google Ngrams also finds nothing. It appears to me that this "Abadir dynasty" simply never existed.

Although some may perhaps argue that the article should be merged into the 'History' section of Harar, I would strongly recommend against that, since the article is written from the very specific point of view that there was a (dynastic) continuity in the rule of Harar from the Middle Ages until the 19th century, which just appears not to be the case. It in fact approaches being a hoax, and should be deleted accordingly. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and repurpose to Harar (historical region). Abadir dynasty is actually mentioned in the article verbatim by reference 23, relying on only google keywords is not going to cut it. Abadir founded the state followed by the succession of Harari clan rulers is what defines a "dynasty". Abadir was the religious ruler who first used the title Imam, his later successor Imam was Ahmed ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi, as this source explains the secular Walasma dynasty invaded Harar/Adal and used the title Sultan instead. see p.13 [32]. The article is a historical overview of rulers on the Harar plateau known as Adal hence an alternative title is a good idea [33] [34]. The ancient semitic speaking state continued into the 19th century in the form of Emirate of Harar as Enrico Cerulli and others have said but was weakened, see p.386-387 [35] or [36]. Magherbin (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Note that ref 23, which does indeed passingly mention an "Abadir dynasty" on p. 48, was published in Harar by the Harari People Regional State, Culture, Heritage and Tourism Bureau. Not quite a reliable source. Moreover, it uses the word only to refer to the pre-15th century semi-legendary 'saints' who are supposed to have succeeded Abadir in Harar before the 15th-century arrival of the Walasma dynasty (Hecht 1987, p. 13 calls the narrative about these saints a "legend"), not quite in the same sense that our article here envisions it (as historically continuing through the 16th-century golden age and even to the 19th). To call these semi-legendary saints "clan rulers" and identifying them with the modern Harari people is, of course, utterly misleading (though the fact that the Harari people themselves regard Abadir as their common ancestor may reveal something of where the pseudohistory is coming from here). Continually referring to the historical Adal Sultanate (which from 1520 on had its capital in Harar, but was ruled by the Walasma dynasty) as if it somehow proved the existence of a legendary "Abadir dynasty", which would then somehow be identical to a "Adal dynasty" (also just a few results on Gscholar) functions as a red herring. Apart from the pointer to ref 23, this keep !vote just takes the ref-bombing from the article to this Afd: we don't need all those refs not mentioning any Abadir dynasty at all, we just need a few reliable sources that do provide significant coverage of this purported Abadir dynasty. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  The saints such as Abadir were leaders of nations/clans as Gibbs quotes the tradition on p.95-96 "the murid of Aw Abadir, among the 44 founding saints, individuals were adopted by populations as their representatives. Once 'chosen' as representatives of qabila, (nationality) these saints were adopted as part of these respective groups." [37] This is the timeline of Harar which is why several references cite Abadir as a founder and then discuss Adal/Ahmed wars including this one [38]. Abadir was an Arab (according to most references) I didnt identify him with Harari, i'm not sure where you're getting that. Not even the article states Abadir was Harari. Some scholars suspect he was Harari especially Enrico Cerulli though. If we are going to strictly go by dynastic bloodline and not successors, it should be renamed Harar (historical region) as opposed to the modern city of Harar since the content refers to events on the Harar plateau. Magherbin (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Not sure where I'm getting that? You stated above: Abadir founded the state followed by the succession of Harari clan rulers is what defines a "dynasty". Of course Abadir, like all legendary founders of northern Somali and eastern Ethiopian clans, is supposed to have been Arab (compare Ishaaq bin Ahmed, Darod, Samaale, etc.). But your statement imagines that his equally legendary saintly successors were "Harari clan rulers" and somehow formed a "dynasty", that went on the rule the Adal Sultanate, etc. It's the essence of the hoax here, and no RS will speak of such a 'dynasty'. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's what is generally assumed by a researcher in this field. Tradition states the neighboring Hadiya Sultanate was founded by an offspring of Abadir and a local Sidama. Hadiya is one of the reasons for conflicts escalating between Adal and Ethiopia hence not farfetched if infact Abadir's descendants were in rule at the time of Adal Sultanate. Hadiya was therefore linked to Harari through Abadir's offspring, was the conclusion. He states on p.70 "How close the original solidarity was felt, can be concluded from the fact that Hadiyya was claimed to be a son of Abādir, the founding father of the Harari ethnos, and a local woman. This tradition can provide an indication that the foundation of the Hadiyya as a political and to some extent also ethnic entity took place in the Harär Plateau, where the ancestors of this people had been resident for an obviously considerable time" [39]. Magherbin (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if there were such a dynasty, there would be reliable sources and peer reviewed articles. Don't rename, although I know of the city Harar, where is a historical region discussed? If there is one, start a new article. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Doug Weller, Yes historically there seems to be a Harar region where the Adal Sultanate established a base in the 1300s [40] covering pretty much the area of Hararghe a former province of Ethiopia in the imperial era. This old map also indicates "Hurrur" in large text and also hurrur the cities location respectively [41]. Magherbin (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or repurpose This overlaps with the history section of Harar. I think the best solution would be to repurpose this article as History of Harar, merging in content from Harar and then making this a "main" article for its history section. The alternative is just to merge to Harar. We should not be too strict in the interpretation of RS when discussing things that are semi-legendary. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Peterkingiron, there's a perspective that is novel to me: when things that are semi-legendary are represented as facts on Wikipedia, we should be less strict about reliable sources? So when some other editor one day writes a Arthur dynasty article based on medieval Arthur legends and claiming that the British Empire was still ruled by Arthurians, are you also going to argue that rather than delete it, we should repurpose it as History of England, or merge it into England? Surely there must be something that you've missed here? This comment of mine may sound somewhat hyperbolic (which I'll admit it is), but I will ask you to think twice before supporting the repurposed but continued use of a pseudohistoric essay. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Apaugasma: I'm a bit confused. Some of the sources used in the article look reliable to me as they are published by academic publishers. They may not corroborate the existence of an Abadir dynasty, but (assuming they weren't misquoted) couldn't that content be moved to Harar (or a new article called History of Harar)? Maybe I'm missing something? VR _talk 01:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vice regent! Yes, you are missing something. Most of the sources cited in the article are indeed reliable, some eminently so. However, these reliable sources do not actually support the contents of the article: they were, as you say, misquoted. I invite you to spot-check some of the sources cited: you'll soon find that they are consistently saying something entirely different than what they're cited for.

More specifically, these sources speak about Abadir and his saintly successors as legends which function as a focus of identity formation for Ethiopian ethnic groups. See, for example, Gibb 1999, p. 97 (one of the sources cited in the article): As these ancestors hold a privileged position in relation to God, they are honoured and their actions celebrated. The exemplary and enviable characters of the saints depicted within legendary accounts suggests the morality and worthiness of the ancestors of the group, and provide standards to be emulated by successive generations. These legends, shared throughout the community, carried from individual to individual and transmitted across generations, promote the internalization of ideals the ancestral saints are believed to represent. And on p. 95: In Harar there are Arab saints whose origins are variously traced to Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and Turkey as well as large numbers of Somali and Oromo saints. Heterogeneous populations can thus see their ancestry reflected in the corpus of saints since all refer collectively to the shrines as āwach ['fathers']. This Harari tradition of designating saints as patrons for various ethnic and socio-political groups extends into the 16th century and beyond, and Abadir and his medieval founding saints are only a small subsection of them. But even if some of these later saints likely did exist, they do not in any way constitute a 'dynasty': this is the basic mistaken premise.

The rest of the article is written from that premise, where every political leader based in Harar is taken to continue the 'Abadir legacy', the ancient Muslim state in the Harar plateau, as the article calls it. This is all hopelessly ahistorical and 'Harar-centric' (for example, until 1520 the Adal Sultanate was centered in Zeila and Dakkar, both in Somaliland). But for the article to maintain that point of view, it needs to keep on misrepresenting its sources: you'll find that also the later sections of the article have only a weak or sometimes nonexistent relation with the sources it cites. It's very clear that this was all written without consulting sources, with a boatload of citations added after the fact in order to make it look legitimate. In other words, a hoax. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Apaugasma: I was expecting the content does not match the source example not another "this is not a dynasty assertion", no editor is proposing it be written in the sense of a saint dynasty in this discussion. Zeila was historically a general term for a portion of East Africa inhabited by Muslims not exclusively Somaliland. [42]. Dakkar is not Somaliland either, an editor wrote over that article with their POV. Dakar's true location is unknown but most scholars consider it near Harar city thats why Adal is indicated to have been established on the Harar plateau. [43] [44]. The claim of misrepresenting sources needs proof, I have yet to see that. Magherbin (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that the medieval Dakkar may not be identical to the modern Dakkar, instead being located on the Harar plateau. That's in the source you cite. But 'the content does not match the source' examples are really not hard to find: in fact they're right here in what you've just written. You cite this source to supposedly show that Zeila was a general term for some undetermined Islamic portion of East Africa, yet the source does not say anything of the sort, and instead speaks about Zeila (Zayla) as a harbour city reached by Ibn Battuta from Aden over sea (very clearly establishing that the Zeila territory was governed from the coastal Somali city of Zeila). Then you cite this source as evidence of the importance of Harar, yet that source states that Dakkar is barely present in medieval written sources and not yet localized. The memory of this city was outshined in favor of Harar, the current oral tradition overvaluing the influence of Harar in Ethiopia's Islamic history. Again, you're right that the Adal Sultanate was established on the Harar plateau, but from the city of Dakkar, not the city of Harar; yet the article you wrote does not even mention Dakkar. Nor does it mention that the rulers who established the Adal Sultanate on the Harar plateau belonged to the Walashma dynasty, who came from Zeila and had no intrinsic relation with with the Harar region, which they merely chose for its military strategic location: in the article this becomes an alliance state between Abadir and Walasma dynasties ensues designated Adal Sultanate. Then you seem to make very light of your misrepresentation of the sources on the legendary medieval saints: Gibb 1999 as quoted above clearly depicts Abadir as a legend, yet it is used in the article to support the sentence The arrival of Abadir transformed the Harar plateau into an Islamic bastion between the ninth and eleventh centuries. You say that you've yet to see misrepresentation of sources, but you're doing it as a matter of course, and indeed you've yet to see that yourself. Mixing historical facts with imagination and repeatedly pointing to the historical facts as a defense against critics are both characteristic of pseudohistory. This back-and-forth could continue without end, but ultimately other editors will have to check the text-source integrity of the article for themselves. It's the fact that this takes up so much energy and time that makes the deception so hard to counter. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's alot of red herring and strawman arguments being made here. An encyclopedia mentions legends especially when historians have accepted some parts of it, for example see Encyclopaedia Aethiopica's entry "Harar history till 1875" (p.1015 onwards [45]. The entry much like this article covers most of the events of Harar region that includes Dakar city which is on the Harar plateau. Magherbin (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the lack of sources directly supporting this material, and I disagree that this could be merged or made into a history article, considering the original research (WP is not a journal) and presenting legend as history. If there are traditional claims, they can be presented as such, by sources that treat them as such, in a relevant article like Harar. —Paleo Neonate – 20:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This should be merged into the article on Harar under some sort of section on local mythology or legend - any legitimate history based on adequate sourcing can then be extracted where appropriate and placed in the main body of the history section of the article. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The current article is written as if it were history, and it's not possible to make this into a mythology/legend section without rewriting it from scratch. The mythology it describes (the legacy of Abadir, an ancient Muslim state ruled from the city of Harar, originating in the Middle Ages and continuing into the 19th century) is in fact not a traditional, sourceable mythology, but one wholly devised by the article's author, Magherbin. Any continued use of it would perpetuate the novel ideas put forward by a Wikipedia editor in an originally researched essay. It would damage Wikipedia' integrity at its heart. Yes, the Harar article should absolutely have a section on Harar's traditional saint mythology, but did you notice that the essay under discussion here does not contain one letter on that subject? Instead, it's all pseudohistory. As a mixture of fact and legend, pseudohistory is neither reusable as history, nor as legend: it's not just that they're too intertwined, it's that together they form a new fabrication all of its own, which is not only false but also entirely non-notable (in contradistinction to the legends themselves, which are indeed false yet eminently notable as an encyclopedic subject). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apaugasma how exactly does a merge work? From what I thought, merge doesn't mean "copy and paste" this article into another. It means save this article as a draft somewhere, and then integrate portions of it into the other article, one sentence at a time, ensuring consensus for each such move, per WP:ONUS. So "merge", "writing from scratch", "repurpose" all seem like the same thing to me, procedurally.VR _talk 16:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MERGE. It's copying in the contents, and then removing/adding/changing things as appropriate. It may perhaps refer to copying in only certain sections if so specified (which !voters in this discussion haven't done), but if every sentence needs checking (which absolutely is the case here), merging would be unrealistically laborious. WP:MERGE notes under Step 5: Perform the merger: The main reason that the merger backlog includes thousands of articles is because the people who support the merger neglect to undertake this final step. Ironic, isn't it? It's one thing for !voters here to say the article should be merged/repurposed, and an entirely other thing to actually do so. I don't believe that anyone here, except of course the article's creator, would be willing to actually undertake this. And even if they would want to try, checking the citations for every sentence, they would soon find that almost none of it is actually verified by the sources cited. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The article is certainly not good enough for mainspace and possibly just needs to be deleted. The use of sources is highly suspect and I know from experience that this topic area attracts a lot of nonsense. I also know that few Wikipedians (myself not excepted) no much about this area. Since the creator himself says "repurpose", I think it is reasonable to give him or her some time to show us what such a repurposing looks like in light of the criticisms here. If the draft is not improved, then it will be deleted. (I have no objection to deletion now, but I think draftifying it would be acceptable. Merging is not.) Srnec (talk) 23:23, 9 November 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 02:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert V. Clark[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. The last of the non-notable Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User (indeffed for copyvio) and dePRODed. Source 1 is CAF a User contribution site so not RS and doesn’t even mention him anyway. 2) a tabulation of aircraft losses, no detail about him other than confirming details of his shootdown. 3) the photo is widely published and is taken from the National Archives here: [46], but the National Archives caption doesn't contain any of the unreferenced detail in the blog (some of which is verified by other sources and some isn’t such as him leading a group of Italian resistance fighters) and so it is not RS. 4) this is a highly dubious source, it claims to be from a Boeing inhouse newsletter interview of his son, but I can't find an original copy and as its from a family member it is not independent. It contains a number of questionable claims including that he shot down 4 German planes, which I can’t confirm anywhere - strange as it would have made him the tied 2nd highest scoring Tuskegee airman. The claimed meeting with Eleanor Roosevelt is also unconfirmed anywhere else. As a result I am skeptical about all of it and think it should be disregarded. 5) Black Knights which I added is RS, but just confirms his class number. 6) Central Arkansas Library, RS but just a photo and one sentence, so no detail. 7) Tuskegee Airmen which I added is RS, but just states that he completed a tour in 1943. 8) The Tuskegee Airmen an illustrated history which I added is RS, but just confirms that he was shot down, evaded capture and eventually returned. There is also African Americans of Pine Bluff and Jefferson County which states that "Clark was shot down while flying over Germany on August 16, 1944. He evaded capture and led a small group of Italian partisans until he returned to the 99th on May 7, 1945." This is not supported by any reliable source, obviously he was shot down over Italy not Germany, presumably he didn’t speak Italian so its hard to see how he could have led a band of partisans. In accordance with WP:BEFORE I added several references after a Google search, but apart from that its all passing mentions. The sources accordingly do not meet WP:GNG as they don't amount to significant coverage as they don't address the topic directly and in detail WP:NOTINHERITED applies here, just belonging to a notable unit/organisation does not confer notability on all its members. The Tuskegee Airmen receiving the Congressional Gold Medal in 2006 doesn’t satisfy #1 of WP:ANYBIO and just being a Tuskegee Airman doesn’t satisfy #2 of ANYBIO. Mztourist (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another poorly-sourced article about someone who would instantly fail BASIC if not for a unit affiliation which will lead people to argue otherwise. I'd support a merge of any RS information to a list of Tuskegee Airmen, but there isn't enough here to convey any sort of individual notability. Intothat darkness 17:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Tuskegee airman - integration pioneer. I am working on the article - added items of interest and references. In the meantime WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. This is a notable Tuskegee airman who easily passes WP:N and any problems are WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Lightburst (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He was one of the Jackie Robinson's of the segregated United States Armed Forces. There were a total of 932 pilots who graduated from the Tuskegee program. But only, 355 served in active duty during World War Two as fighter pilots. Clark was one of these 355. He also scored what was one of the first African American BF 109 kills - notable because the Tuskegee Airmen were mostly relegated to escort duty. We have room for such notable military. He returned and became a flight instructor. Lightburst (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the "all Tuskegee Airmen are notable"/INHERITED argument again. Nothing notable about him. Your "improvements" are minimal and don't add any new reliable sources. The one newspaper story you added is after he returned from his first tour. I have doubts about his one claimed Me109 kill and need to see a better source for this. Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree.(edit conflict) I added the Detroit Free Press - The Encyclopedia of Arkansas and other solid references. When a nominator has to type a 1000 word dissertation to obfuscate a deletion rationale, I think there is not a good reason to delete. And then there is that adhom in the rationale to poison the well - hoping to make the Herbert V. Clark article INHERIT the stain of the indeffed article starter. I will keep editing. I want to spend less time in the AfD, so I may not respond here. Nobody needs to see more over participation by me. Lightburst (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You keep editing, but your sources are unreliable, this: [47] confirms that he didn't shoot down a BF 109 as was stated in Encyclopedia of Arkansas (which was there originally). The "1000 word dissertation" is not "to obfuscate a deletion rationale" but to explain why the sources are so poor and dismiss spurious argument raised by you and others on the other Tuskegee Airmen AFDs. Mztourist (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask you not to remove RS information. If you leave the reference you cannot erase other items from that reference. And your requirement of 2 sources for each fact in the article is not a requirement. If it is a reliable source - all the information is reliable. At the moment I am the only one working on the article. I am going to reinstall the information and ask you not to erase it to favor your desire to delete. Lightburst (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised this on the Talk page but will respond here also. The source I provided was prepared by Dr. Daniel L. Haulman at the Air Force Historical Research Agency in January 2008. Clark isn't listed there as scoring a single aerial victory. Meanwhile you claim that Encyclopedia of Arkansas should be relied on for the claim that Clark scored a BF 109 kill. I don't agree, Air Force records are more reliable than Encyclopedia of Arkansas on this point. You state that my "requirement of 2 sources for each fact in the article is not a requirement", where did I say that? We have two completely conflicting claims, Either he did shoot down a BF 109 or he didn't. Find a better source for the BF 109 kill because Encyclopedia of Arkansas is wrong on this point. Mztourist (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel that this has enough reliable sources to pass the GNG. There are clearly several books and newspaper articles that refer to his contribution as one of the African-American pilots who flew combat missions. In particular, I'm sure that having an entry in the Encyclopedia of Arkansas, plus a lot more information in its Tuskegee airmen article, proves notability. No thread at the reliable sources noticeboard has ever concluded this encyclopedia to be an unreliable source. Wikipedia guidelines should be similar to those of other encyclopedias, so the fact that Clark has an entry in another major encyclopedia is of great significance when it comes to notability. Patiodweller (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As with the other similar AfDs that ended with deletion, the available coverage fails WP:ROUTINE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. He is included in the Encyclopedia of Arkansas because he came from there, but Wikipedia does not have 'born in Arkansas' as an indicator of notability. Avilich (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Patiodweller please read his entry at Encyclopedia of Arkansas which states: "Herbert V. Clark was a member of the Ninety-ninth Fighter Squadron from its inception. He is shown here as a major, the rank he held upon retirement. " and "Herbert Vanallen Clark (1919–2003) of Pine Bluff (Jefferson County) was born on March 16, 1919. Clark was the first Arkansan to have graduated as a cadet to become a fighter pilot. As a member of class 42-F, he was part of the pioneering group to go directly from the Civilian Pilot Training Program (CPTP) into basic training in 1942. Clark was the first Arkansan of color in the Army Air Corps to be assigned to the 553rd replacement training unit at Selfridge Field, a segregated military facility located about twenty-five miles north of Detroit, Michigan. Clark was a member of the Ninety-ninth Fighter Squadron from its inception and was one of the first black pilots to have shot down an ME-109, a premier German fighter." that's it, hardly indepth coverage. Also the statement that he shot down an ME-109 is clearly wrong as shown by the Air Force Historical Research Agency source that I added. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC) I also note that it is stated that on the Encyclopedia of Arkansas page that articles "are written by volunteer contributors who receive a payment of 5 cents per word." So there are serious questions about reliability especially if you are financially incentivised to write more. Mztourist (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are enough book sources cited that if they do indeed cover the subject (WP:AGF), then this passes WP:GNG. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is an essay and is subjective, whereas GNG is policy. NemesisAT (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bold of you to invoke AGF while misrepresenting GNG as policy, ignoring that I cited ROUTINE as well, and completely overlooking the nom's analysis of the sources. Presumably you didn't look at any of them. Avilich (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:NemesisAT you say "there are enough book sources cited that if they do indeed cover the subject (WP:AGF), then this passes WP:GNG" so you are just assuming that they cover him, meaning that you haven't actually looked at the sources. I don't see how you can !vote Keep when you haven't even read the sources. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there are enough book sourcesJackattack1597 (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions in 3 books doesn't amount to significant coverage. Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer This fellow's contributions amount almost exclusively to indiscriminate drive-by keeps across multiple AfDs with no source examination and often a single minute apart from each other. It's safe to say he doesn't look at sources before voting. Avilich (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cant see anything in the article that makes him stand-out against the thousands of wartime airmen for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The Encyclopedia of Arkansas has a paragraph on him in an article on Tuskeegees, and one blog post cited purports to reprint a Boeing company newspaper article which is a feature on him, but everything else is sporadic, with either single mentions or no mentions (like this source which has been added to the article) or just outright blog posts. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indy, if you look at the article's Talk Page I had to add that in to counter the incorrect claim in Encyclopedia of Arkansas that he had shot down an Me-109 and it also shows that his son's claim in the Boeing newsletter that he shot down 4 German planes was BS. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but I believe if a claim is highly doubtful either qualify it or leave it out. I don’t think it’s good practice to cite a source in article to discuss what does not appear in it. -Indy beetle (talk)

Noted I have deleted the paragraph. Mztourist (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [48] Page 74 Lieutenants William A Cambell, Span Watson, and Herbet V. Clark became the first Tuskegee Airmen to complete their tour it combat and move on to other assignments. As mentioned in this AFD already, not all of them got to be fighter pilots, that quite a notable achievement given the racism of the day. Getting a Congressional Gold Medal proves someone is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The fact that others got it does not make it less important. Dream Focus 03:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They completed a tour, how is that "a notable achievement"? As has been repeatedly stated a unit award of the Congressional Gold Medal does not satisfy #1 of ANYBIO. Mztourist (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clark did not get an individual gold medal from Congress, his unit did. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on the arguments made above, it seems there is sufficient reasoning to keep this article. - wolf 03:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on the grounds that the content in the sources given is too thin to meet the requirements of "Significant coverage". GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverage in RS (t · c) buidhe 07:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know how many combat missions a fighter pilot had to fly before being allowed to return from active duty? How many of them achieved this? Is it notable? Fighter pilots had to fly more missions than bomber crews before earning this. There should be a government website somewhere listing how many missions each pilot went on. Dream Focus 14:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it was notable you should have no difficulty finding reliable sources establishing that, otherwise this seems to be heading in the direction of WP:SYNTH. Mztourist (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If someone does find some information on examples of tour lengths they can add it to United_States_Army_Air_Forces#Combat_crew_rotation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the source currently used in that article (Little, 1968) has some pretty detailed information that for whatever reason wasn't added to the article as it exists. The standard when Clark would have been there looks to be 50 sorties and/or 150 hours. Given the sort of action units were seeing at the time I doubt it was unusual for a pilot to make those numbers. Intothat darkness 22:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (and add his unlinked name) to List of Tuskegee Airmen. There were around a thousand Tuskegee pilots, hundreds of whom saw combat. Not all of them warrant an article, and the weak sourcing put him squarely in the that category. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific as to which part of the discussion you are putting forward as to reason for retention? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The entire discussion, to be clearer, the back and forth, the give and take. Seems that this could have easily been kept without relisting. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The entire discussion" is vague and uninformative, how do you see that the sourcing satisfies BASIC? Mztourist (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should upgrade to Strong Keep per the discussion as it unfolds below. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep or merge~~: this article is on the threshold of what I would consider WP:SIGCOV -- some quantity and quality of coverage, but still left wanting more. I think it barely passes the threshold for inclusion. But if not, there is enough verifiable information here that this should be WP:PRESERVEd. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I came here to improve the article. Just want to point out that verifiable information about this man's story was removed as "irrelevant" by the nominator.[49] I think we would have a disagreement about what's relevant. If you really believe that offering some narrative context to the man's story is irrelevant and this should be a sanitized article with only numbers and dates, that's one thing. But if you push it to be a bare bones database article, and then insist on deleting it, without even considering a merge... well, I would question whether you're operating in good faith. I'm going to disengage and continue improving articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shooterwalker much of the information you added was plainly incorrect. I deleted the claim that he had shot down an FW-190 because this is not supported by the AFHRA or any other reliable source. I deleted "His family prayed for his return every Sunday" as irrelevant. I deleted "he was found alive when the Allies went into Italy. He was able to rejoin his family for Christmas in 1944" because he clearly did not rejoin his family for Christmas 1944 and we have multiple sources saying that he only returned to Allied lines in May 1945. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Edit summary literally says it fails WP:V. Avilich (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed some of the bad sources and unverifiable statements mentioned in the nomination, but what remains is still insufficient to establish notability. The Encyclopedia of Arkansas, which only has a short and ordinary biographical sketch, apparently does paid submissions and Mztourist seems to have demonstrated it's reliability is questionable. Caver 2011, Horman 2001 and Stentiford 2012 each contain only one or two passing mentions in completely ordinary circumstances, and the Haulman source only has his name in a database. Pearson 1944 is a newspaper picture with a caption, and this new source by Shotterwalker seems not to be independent.
It's dubious that, even when put together, these sources satisfy WP:SIGCOV, but even if they did, they would do so in the sense of quantity, not quality. The article is basically a collection of ordinary events that don't stand out for importance, and so notability guidelines like WP:ROUTINE ("Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable") and WP:BASIC ("trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability") are not satisfied. Neither of the WP:ANYBIO criteria are met either. Nobody here would be arguing otherwise if he hadn't belonged to his famous unit. Not one of the keep votes so far are convincing. Avilich (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep per WP:GNG. Sourcing (and the article in general) has improved a good deal since it was nominated. Clark seems to have a unique story that has been covered in several sources, including books, newspaper articles, and academic research. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you could possibly form that view, he still lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and his story is not covered in any detail in "books, newspaper articles and academic research." Mztourist (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking my own rule here, but "I don't see how you could possibly form that view" isn't building a WP:CONSENSUS and isn't assuming good faith. You absolutely do see how we can form that view: if you stopped removing verifiable content that you think is "irrelevant", you would easily see why people believe that the significant coverage threshold has been passed, and that the article would consist of more than bare bones dates. It's fine to disagree, and I certainly would prefer you stopped removing the content, but you don't need to hound every editor who doesn't share your view. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please describe which and how sources establish notability exactly? Evidently you didn't read my source analysis immediately above yours, let alone any of the actual sources in the article. Where on earth are these "books, newspaper articles, and academic research"? The books in the article certainly do not present a "unique story" (again, just passing mentions); the rest I'll assume you're inventing. Avilich (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation, but I'll decline. More interested in improving the bio. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see how Pete Forsyth and several above say that and agree, Keep, see also [50] Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One single passing mention, literally no coverage whatsoever. Avilich (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that can be concluded by that false claim of yours is you have no access to the source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"One single passing mention" (let alone "no coverage") is incorrect, because the index clearly shows that Clark has been discussed on several pages. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is almost never mentioned individually, only among listings of several unit members, and there are virtually no details of any accomplishment of his. Closest thing there is to actual coverage is that brief notice on page 166. Avilich (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And there are people who support WP:PRESERVEing that "actual coverage". Again, there can be good faith disagreement on this. Your view is clear, but repeating it doesn't eliminate people who believe in good faith that there is enough here to support an article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Run-of-the-mill trivia is explicitly categorized under WP:DON'T PRESERVE. The onus is on you and on anybody voting keep to show that the sources provided meet even the most basic notability guidelines. Your call to AGF doesn't inspire confidence when trivia is advertised as significant coverage and when you yourself assume bad faith in response to the nominator editing some of your contributions. Avilich (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many disagree with you. There is significant coverage, found in multiple sources, on multiple published pages, and does pass the notability guideline, as seen by multiple editors. Your analysis has been found wanting by multiple editors, and appears untrustworthy since you said something false. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking on that google books link gives me "No results found in this book for Herbert V Clark" when I take off the quotes I get a photocaption in which he is mentioned as not present and single sentence mentioning Clark alongside two other pilots assigned to 553rd RTU. That is not "significant coverage". GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As others have already noted and conceded, there are multiple pages, he is in the book. Do the work to get the book, if you can't use google. 19:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before accusing me of making misleading or false statements without elaboration (twice already), you might want to explain why a source whose coverage of the subject is limited to "They [a group including the subject] too declined to return with the 332nd when it left on Christmas Eve" meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC. Before insinuating that I'm a propagator of falsehoods, you might want to disclose (in the interest of transparency) that you yourself are only here in the first place because you saw Dream Focus complaining here that this article is nominated for deletion. Since neither DF nor his message are neutral or impartial, you were inappropriately notified, so ideally your vote should be discarded outright--if not simply for your impertinent and misleading statements, then at least by what led you here in the first place. Avilich (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time you are false. I am most certainly not here because of seeing anything Dream Focus wrote. The nominator decided to put a link to this AfD on Jimbo's page. I followed the link in what the nominator wrote. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except it wasn't the nominator at all, it was Dream Focus who posted it there and framed it as an undue deletion effort. And still no discussion on the sources I see. Avilich (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone lacking access to the A-Train book, a free account at Internet Archive will get you access: [51] -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First mention is a picture (88), the second a roster (89), the rest are passing mentions (166, 182) or trivial career happenings (118: crash-landing maneuver). Avilich (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book did not find them "trivial", it found them worthy of noting. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book found them worthy of noting because "Tuskegee Airman" is a criterion of inclusion in it. But "being a Tuskegee Airman" is not a measure of notability on Wikipedia. And routine career events don't cut it either. If it were anybody else from a different unit, nobody would be arguing for notability using the same standards you're applying here. Avilich (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your argument amounts to, he is not notable because he is a Tuskegee Airman. When sources name him and discuss what he did specifically, they disagree with your false premise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The argument definitely is not "he is not notable because he is a Tuskegee Airman". I and others here have improved many of the Tuskegee Airmen pages created by the same User, however in doing so we identified a number of pages where notability is not satisfied and this is one of them. Many of the Keep !votes are made on the basis of the non-existent inherent notability of just being a Tuskegee Airman, rather than looking at source quality.Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peteforsyth this comment from you: [52] indicates that you didn't even read my nomination. Look above and you will see that I wrote "the photo is widely published and is taken from the National Archives here: [53]." Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to those researching the article and the closing admin: Another participant in this discussion (whose vote above is "delete") has now twice reverted my attempt to add information pointing to a primary source. The first one, I assumed was a mistake, but the second one is clearer. Strikes me as odd, that someone would both vote to delete, and actively interfere with making source materials more visible to readers and editors. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bad show to mention an editor but not by name so they are not notified. Worse to impugn motives. We cite secondary sources, that the secondary source references the primary source is not relevant to the ref. There is no obstacle to improving an article while it is at AFD; until it is deleted, or not, it is still visible to readers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not impugning motives, just trying to keep track of source materials, which have been much discussed and critiqued (granted, that it's among an avalanche of personal comments). -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Avilich There's really nothing that demonstrates WP:SIGCOV. The subject would merit inclusion in a list, but not a stand alone article. The only reasonable source of significant coverage is the Encyclopedia of Arkansas and I find the arguments that it is unreliable compelling. W 42 16:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick newspaper search finds numerous references to him during WWII - the best of which is when he suddenly reappeared after being missing for 9 months - though there's other coverage when he was serving in Italy, and when he disappered. I've added a reference to the article. Seems very cut-and-dry to me ... not sure what would make this particular article so contentious. Nfitz (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there that wasn't on the page already. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a significant, independent, reliable in-depth source. If you think that was already on the page already, then you, User:Mztourist, should withdraw your nomination. Nfitz (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You added a newspaper story that just confirmed what was all already on the page. Nothing there that would prompt me to withdraw the nomination of this unremarkable pilot. Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not a significant, independent, reliable in-depth source that goes part of the way to meeting GNG? 9 months of the war with guerrillas in Italy - that alone is pretty remarkable for a pilot! What is it about these pilots that makes you so diehard to delete them, in abeyance of Wikipedia guidelines? Nfitz (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The story was provided by the Fifteenth AAF in Italy, so its WP:PRIMARY, which explains why it reads like a propaganda puff piece. We are not "diehard to delete" pages, we are just ensuring that BASIC is satisfied and that is a Wikipedia guideline. Mztourist (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As to how uncommon it was for downed aircrew to join (along with escaped prisoners of war) the Italian partisans , that could be checked in a work such as Among the Italian Partisans: The Allied Contribution to the Resistance. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to be disturbed, User:Mztourist on how hard you are reaching to delete this article. There's certainly other sources for this in books, such as Make a Difference by Henry Foster (doctor) and Benjamin O. Davis, Jr.: American by Benjamin O. Davis Jr.. Nfitz (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beyond disturbed that when I point out that your "best of which" newspaper story is PRIMARY you then pivot to a book by someone who vaguely knew him as a child (Foster) and a book by Davis which isn't included on the page. Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why does finding additional sources disturb you? Nfitz (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finding good quality sources doesn't disturb me at all, however you finding a PRIMARY propaganda piece and trying to pass it off as a reliable source does disturb me. Mztourist (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's your issue with the Davis book - what difference does it make about being in the article or not? Nfitz (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe Davis' book adds to notability then add it and the relevant detail to the page, don't just claim that has significant coverage of Clark without proving it. Mztourist (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added a reference that's better. There are other secondary references already in the article. I don't want to ref bomb this. Feel free to improve the article by adding the source, if you feel that's necessary. But note that the source not actually being referenced in the article is not a basis for deletion (WP:CONRED). Nfitz (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep refactoring my above !vote to a more certain keep, thanks to the significant coverage in this source discovered by User:Nfitz, which I incorporated into the article. Note to closing admin that this is the version of the article I am referring to, since the AFD nominator continues to remove verifiable information without any policy-based reason. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So glad to see the bar for significant coverage dipping ever-lower. Intothat darkness 21:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shooterwalker as I have pointed out to User:Nfitz, that story in the Pittsburgh Courier is provided by the Fifteenth AAF in Italy, so its WP:PRIMARY and doesn't count towards notability. Do you really think they investigated what Clark had done or just accepted his story at face value as a feelgood piece for the folks at home? Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh User:Mztourist, would you remove anyone only ever mentioned by Bede, because there's only one source? Nfitz (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean and throwing out whataboutisms doesn't distract from the fact that the newspaper story you championed is of negligible value. Mztourist (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% disagree with your fallacious claim that the 1945 in-depth newspaper article is of negligeable value. There are numerous other post-war sources that confirm this - not to mention newspaper reports after he was shot down noting that they were MIA. Nfitz (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I have told you repeatedly, the story comes from the Fifteenth AAF in Italy, so its WP:PRIMARY. Its a press release from the USAAF's information/propaganda department. It is not a story written by a reporter for the Pittsburgh Courier who investigated the content. No-one disputes the basic facts that he was shot down, was missing, evaded capture and returned to Allied lines in May 1945. However the details of him joining partisans, sabotaging Axis forces and being "Squadron Commander" (whatever that means) cannot be taken at face value. Mztourist (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the "facts" that you have taken issue with have been added to the article from this reference. Nfitz (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass the notability test, in my eyes. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Packo[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since its creation with a comment on the talk page essentially stating that it would be unlikely to survive an AfD. Only the top tier of Slovakia is listed at WP:FPL and all of the sources confirm that he has never played in the top tier, so WP:NFOOTBALL is not met. GSA also confirms this. The only substantial coverage seems to be from FK Pohronie's own website, which is an unacceptable source as it is neither reliable nor independent of Packo. Clubs at all levels, professional and amateur, write articles on their own players; this does not make them notable. A Slovakian source search and Google searches came back with very little. The sources that were relevant were all sorely lacking in depth: see Dobrenoviny, CAS and Dnes24. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, and a clear WP:BEFORE has been done. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Without prejudice to change vote to Keep if significant coverage is later found. For my search, I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV for the subject, noting that someone with searching skills for Slovak/Czech sources might uncover things I was unable to. Until that point, my vote stands as delete. GauchoDude (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The individual appears to fail WP:NBASIC in addition to WP:NSOCCER from the sourcing I can find. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:48, 7 November 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. Admin User:Liz, R2 deleted the article after User:サンドマン moved it to draftspace. (non-admin closure) - hako9 (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NEM (cryptocurrency)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Project appears to fail WP:NCORP and I have not seen any RS covering the topic and all the existing sources are mainly from primary sources and press releases. It has also been repeatedly created, recreated by the creating editors despite of it having previously rejected and moved to draftspace, so it may be worth revisiting whether it's notable to remain in mainspace. WomenProj (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WomenProj (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WomenProj (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is a translation of a Japanese article, and the only quotes from primary sources are from the technical documentation, most of which are not official NEM quotes.Some of the more technical content has been removed to make it easier to read.— Preceding unsigned comment added by サンドマン (talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as spam - almost entirely cited to crypto blogs, which are not considered reliable sources on English Wikipedia - zero crypto sites have meaningful COI policies on crypto holdings, and many are straight-up pay-for-play. If it's not covered in mainstream financial news or genuine peer-reviewed academic sources, it's not noteworthy - David Gerard (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I will draft it and try to improve the quality of the article.サンドマン (talk) 16:41, 4 November 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. Admin User:Liz, R2 deleted the article after User:サンドマン moved it to draftspace. (non-admin closure) - hako9 (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol (blockchain)[edit]

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

Project appears to fail WP:NCORP and I have not seen any RS covering the topic and all the existing sources are mainly from primary sources. It has also been repeatedly created, recreated by the creating editors despite of it having previously rejected and moved to draftspace. WomenProj (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WomenProj (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WomenProj (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is a translation of a Japanese article, and the only quotes from primary sources are from the technical documentation, most of which are not official Symbol quotes. Some specialized content has been removed to make the page less reliant on primary information.サンドマン (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as spam - almost entirely cited to crypto blogs, which are not considered reliable sources on English Wikipedia - zero crypto sites have meaningful COI policies on crypto holdings, and many are straight-up pay-for-play. If it's not covered in mainstream financial news or genuine peer-reviewed academic sources, it's not noteworthy - David Gerard (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I will draft it and try to improve the quality of the article サンドマン (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Petar Lakov[edit]

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

His 2 professional games 12 years ago provide only a very weak presumption of notability. A Bulgarian search yielded very little about this Lakov, most results were related to fishing. I found only one source about him through Google searches Novsport (translated); this is a brief transfer announcement and does nothing to establish notability. In any case, for GNG to be met we would require multiple sources discussing Lakov in detail. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:19, 1 November 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. Giant Snowman 17:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Longstanding consensus regarding WP:NFOOTY is that players that squeak by with 1 or 2 appearances despite thoroughly failing WP:GNG are not notable. Curbon7 (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Without prejudice to change vote to Keep if significant coverage is later found. For my search, I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV for the subject, noting that someone with searching skills for Bulgarian/Cyrillic sources might uncover things I was unable to. Until that point, my vote stands as delete. GauchoDude (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims members[edit]

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

An obvious list of incriminate information that has sat around for years with no real thought of how to improve it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Nothing of value. Just a directory of external links. Ajf773 (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:LINKFARM. PepperBeast (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deivid Penchev[edit]

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

Made a 36 min appearance over 10 years ago in a professional league but then quickly dropped out of professional football and played in amateur leagues for the remainder of his career. Whilst there is a presumption of WP:GNG from this one appearance, many AfDs have established consensus that this is invalid. A Bulgarian search came back with nothing of note and Google searches came back with a passing mention in Top Sport, which has him down as the godfather for a fellow footballer's child. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 1 November 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. Giant Snowman 17:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Longstanding consensus regarding WP:NFOOTY is that players that squeak by with 1 or 2 appearances despite thoroughly failing WP:GNG are not notable. Curbon7 (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Without prejudice to change vote to Keep if significant coverage is later found. For my search, I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV for the subject, noting that someone with searching skills for Bulgarian/Cyrillic sources might uncover things I was unable to. Until that point, my vote stands as delete. GauchoDude (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radomir Nikov[edit]

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

Played one game of professional football over a decade ago to scrape a technical presumption of being able to pass WP:GNG but searches of "Радомир Ников" yield very little evidence of notability. A Bulgarian search came back with Via Sport and Darik News as the most promising sources. Both of those, however, are articles in which Nikov is mentioned only once in passing and the depth is sorely lacking as far as GNG is concerned. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:50, 1 November 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. Giant Snowman 17:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Longstanding consensus regarding WP:NFOOTY is that players that squeak by with 1 or 2 appearances despite thoroughly failing WP:GNG are not notable. Curbon7 (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Without prejudice to change vote to Keep if significant coverage is later found. For my search, I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV for the subject, noting that someone with searching skills for Bulgarian/Cyrillic sources might uncover things I was unable to. Until that point, my vote stands as delete. GauchoDude (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Munir[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG from what I can see; coverage seems limited to passing mentions in U19 match reports. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG, quite an extensive U19 career, but these appearances aren't notable, and as Spiderone states, coverage is just passing mentions. May well have a notable career in the future, but it's WP:TOOSOON currently. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nom gets it right; the individual fails WP:NCRIC and I can't find sources indicating that they would pass WP:NBASIC. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:50, 7 November 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. – Joe (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sérgio Lopes[edit]

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

BLP without working references Rathfelder (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The pt.wiki text is more complete and does contain some review/interview links (albeit dead and archived links) as well as claims to Gold records, which could be sufficient for WP:MUSICBIO #3. Pró-Música Brasil confirms the subject's O Sétimo was a Gold record. AllyD (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per AllyD, the Portuguese article has better referencing including evidence of Gold records which is a pass of WP:NMUSIC imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:14, 1 November 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. – Joe (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex J. Adams[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill, state-level government appointee fails WP:GNG. "Administrator of the Idaho Division of Financial Management" is not a position that comes close to meeting WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 16:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:12, 1 November 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. – Joe (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ankr[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Couldn't find any notable RS mentions in brief web search.

^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 18:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 18:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 18:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 18:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 18:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Wikipedia needs better coverage of cryptocurrencies. Article needs more work, not deletion. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 03:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just because its crypto it doesn't mean its spam. There are plenty more news about this in Google news. NASDAQ article is in-depth. Boredathome101 (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving it one more relist. More time is needed to discuss regarding the sources in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the question is not "is crypto notable?" The question is "Has THIS particular item received enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability?" The two "keep" comments are not answering this question one way or the other. PianoDan (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This nasdaq article is taken from investorplace. There is no significant coverage in RS anywhere. How many thousands of erc20 based tokens are there? Are we going to have articles on all those? Is there any evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage? The $1b mcap is something, but given the volatility of crypto derivatives long term notability is in question. - hako9 (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure cryptospam. The "Nasdaq article" is a reprint from InvestorPlace, not actually from Nasdaq. Investorplace seems to be the primary source of coverage on this in fact, and has all the signs of a non-independent stockpicking site. There is not a shred of independent, reliable coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ankr is a reputable and recognized company and organization with millions of pageviews, visitors, users, and investors. This page is within all Wikipedia guidelines and will serve the public best as many are searching for information on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdwyer2231 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC) — Kdwyer2231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. – Joe (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Until Love Sets Us Apart[edit]

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

This novel does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. The only reviews it has received are from blogs and other self-published sources. According to the book cover, the "Readers Choice Award" it received is from "salisonline.in" and is not a notable award by Wikipedia's standards. There is not a good redirect target since the author does not have a Wikipedia article. DanCherek (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-08 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 9 November 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 delete per speedy deletion criterion G7 FASTILY 21:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shivam Roy Prabhakar[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Minor roles and lack of independent WP:SIGCOV in reputable reliable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Seems to have a decent publicist though.(NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely WP:TOOSOON. Might become notable in future. Draftified could have worked but I feel he is far from the time he will become notable for his work as an actor; hence, Delete for now. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, It should be deleted. I actually created this article according to his filmography as he has worked with some leading production houses in movies like Bajrangi Bhaijaan, M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story and Dasvi and also played lead in some episodic TV Shows and movies including Fear Files: Darr Ki Sacchi Tasvirein, Chaal Gazab Hai and The Third Hacker. But Now I realize that he may not meet Wikipedia's notability. So delete it now. Wiki2abc (talk) 5:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Fastily, I think a consensus deletion would be better than a speedy, mainly for WP:G4 reasons. Does policy allow restoring and continuing this discussion a full seven days? And of course, what are your thoughts on doing that if it does? Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:54, 4 November 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 14:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Carragher[edit]

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

I found no independent coverage to indicate notability, the article in The Guardian was written by subjects daughter, while death notice in Irish Times is also not independent. other lives in The Guardian is a section explicitly not indicative of notability, instead covering relatively ordinary people. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better. As a founding member of a political party, I can imagine that it might be possible that she actually has better sourcing hiding in the archives than the article currently uses — but I don't have access to any database in which I could find 50-year-old media coverage from Northern Ireland, and she needs a lot more than just her paid inclusion death notice from the classifieds and an obituary self-written by her own daughter. Of course, I'm willing to reconsider if somebody can show stronger sources than this article is currently using, but we don't keep poorly sourced articles just because it's possible to speculate about whether better sources might exist — we only keep poorly sourced articles if somebody can definitively show that better sources do exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 2 November 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 14:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pavithra Chari[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Passing mentions in references. WP:BEFORE shows only PR style material. Very much advertising to make a reputation, not reportage of a reputation made Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:50, 1 November 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 Patronage#Arts. There is no consensus that the article should be kept. Long-term unsourced. All !voters expressed support for redirection in some manner. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Painting and Patronage[edit]

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

There is nothing to indicate that the subject is notable. The article has existed for 15 years, yet has no sources in it. A google search shows no substantive coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Patronage#Arts. I was expecting a different type of article when I saw the title, something like Patronage#Arts or perhaps an article on a book like Painting and Patronage in Cologne 1300–1500. I don't think this is an organization that meets the notability guidelines of NCORP. BTW: Its name appears to be Painting & Patronage, not Painting and Patronage. Vexations (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A simple search returns some very few results about individual initiatives and virtually nothing covering the subject itself. If more is found, the article can be redone at a later date, but the subject does not seem to have attracted much external attention for now. A redirect can be recreated and discussed at RfD later if necessary. Avilich (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why was this relisted, so far consensus is not to keep Avilich (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Patronage#Arts. No sign of significant coverage of this program as an independent entity and it is doubtful that we would expect there to be such. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:42, 8 November 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. – Joe (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Fell[edit]

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

Article about a person not adequately sourced as notable. The notability claim here is that he was "the first Pennsylvanian to successfully burn anthracite on an open air grate", which is very far from being "inherently" notable enough to confer an automatic notability freebie in the absence of a demonstrable pass of WP:GNG -- but the sole source here is a local history book, not even completely cited (it just goes author-title while eliding publication details, ISBN number and page numbers) for the purposes of establishing how much it might or mightn't actually say about Jesse Fell. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one source, and the article's been tagged for that problem for over seven years without ever having a second source added. Bearcat (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania: Based on this recent news article, he seemed to be a significant figure in the founding of Wilkes-Barre, but probably not notable enough for a standalone article. Curbon7 (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Curnon7. Fell seems more local character than notable topic and the article currently fails WP:V. I would not object to it being restored if good reliable sources can be cited which confirm notability. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the application of anthracite is an important topic. As a person who discovered how to use it he is in effect an inventor. I suspect the book cited will be an old one, before the time of ISBN, but that does not invalidate it as a reference. The article is certainly only a stub, but so is the section on the use of anthracite in that article (where he is mentioned). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say old books are invalid sources per se — but the book is an overall history of the town, not a biography of him as a person, and being passingly mentioned in a book about something else isn't enough if it's all the sourcing anybody can find. Bearcat (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge per above. The April 1905 edition of Mines and Minerals confirms the facts but also points out that coal was burned in a grate in Philadelphia by Oliver Evans in 1803, five years earlier. Fell was at least a significant local figure. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable political figure, per above. Although I suspect Jesse W. Fell might be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to determine if the page should be merged or kept as a stand alone article per WP:PAGEDECIDE
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the news articles are enough to show notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Barakat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While he passes WP:NFOOTY, having played five games for the national team, I cannot find any sources on him online (we don't even have a date of birth). The only results I can find are on the similarly-named player born in 1998. The article was actually nominated for deletion, and the result was delete. I'm unsure why it was ultimately not deleted. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: despite passing WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG is comprehensively failed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that it was deleted in 2009 and recreated in 2020. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 04:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kacamata: My edit in 2020 doesn't seem to have recreated the page. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, what did happen? Someone forgot to delete it? But it seems that the article had not edits from 2009 to 2020. This is odd to say the least. I would say it almost impossible. An article in the en.WP. stays over 10 years without a single edit. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 03:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This happened. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. If you, Nehme1499, asked the article to be restored, why did you open this AfD? Or is there something here I'm missing? Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 19:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I forgot about that; makes sense. At the time, I wasn't under the belief that WP:GNG had to be met, as long as NFOOTY was satisfied. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:15, 26 October 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. Giant Snowman 16:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is very odd. We should dig it deeper. How is possible for a soccer player to have 5 caps for a national team and don't be covered by RS. Is this a hoax? Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 03:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kacamata: Both FA Lebanon and National Football Teams are reliable; there is no doubt he played international football for Lebanon. Given that he played pre-Internet era, though, contemporary sources at hand are naturally going to be limited. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 5 (!)appearances for the national team is more than enough and satisfies NFOOTY, much more than the 1 or 2 appearances we generally see for deletions. I have yet to see a player for a recognized national team being deleted. Is this the path we are going down?@Paul Vaurie:@GiantSnowman:@Nehme1499:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortizesp (talk • contribs)
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL by a long way with the verified international caps, which, in my view and as per previous consensus, is superior to just playing a few minutes in a game between two FPL teams. Playing for your country was and still is one of the highest honours in the sport. Clear consensus that this supersedes GNG in many recent discussions including but not limited to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Balomenos, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessy Bamberg-Schitter, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Oe and, as recently as last month, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Xuereb. Worth noting that all of those were basically WP:SNOW keeps. No idea why Barakat should be treated differently at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ortizesp and Spiderone: There are literally no sources at all on the guy other than a couple of database websites. We don't even know his date of birth. WP:GNG superseeds NFOOTY, and notability is failed comprehensively in this case. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think we need to know his date of birth, FA Lebanon and NFT are strong enough sources in my opinion. I think national caps should confer GNG automatically, or at least that's close to how caps were treated historically.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Confirmed to have played for his country, which is far beyond playing for a team in a fully professional league, such as League 2. The reason that it's difficult to find sources in the Roman alphabet is that transliteration from Arabic is notoriously inconsistent. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger: I also (mainly) searched in Arabic, not in Latin script; I still couldn't find anything. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If it's confirmed by RS that he indeed played for a national team, then he's notable. A footballer who played for a national team is not a footballer who can barely pass NFOOTBALL. A footballer who played for a national team is someone who was good enough to be among the best footballers in his country and so, he easily pass our notability criteria. If we delete this article, we would be setting a very dangerous precedent. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 20:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played for his country passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite confirmed international appearances, and noting comments below that I have not seen an individual who has made appearances in a full FIFA / continental governing body sanctioned match deleted, there is no clear consensus regarding notability and regardless of what editors may claim below, there is no guideline that states that international appearances automatically confer GNG. Needs further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's absolutely ridiculous that a notable football player is deleted simply because his pre-internet existence makes it hard to find sources. Editors have become married to the policies and essays without even using common sense. He passes WP:NFOOTY and played for the national team; playing on a national team makes you one of the best football players in the world. I will be very disturbed if a notable athlete is deleted because it was hard to find sources on a foreign-language, pre-Internet player. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NFOOTY (and SNGs in general) exists for this exact reason, a notable person who garnered notability from the pre-internet era. The NFOOTY/GNG exception is only really applicable when the subject barely squeaks by NFOOTY with 1 or 2 appearances despite thoroughly failing GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Playing multiple games for a national team passes WP:NSOCCER. I'm a bit concerned that deleting on an apparent GNG fail could be related to our inability to find existing sources, rather than the lack of existing sources. And, WP:N requires that an individual pass either WP:GNG or a WP:SNG; it's on solid ground to keep in this case. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure why we were ever here with 5 national team appearances (2 of which I could quickly verify - didn't look further). Probably could find a lot more if there were better (any?) Lebanese sources online from 20 years ago! User:GiantSnowman are you sure about this? Nfitz (talk) 00:58, 10 November 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 14:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Joye[edit]

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

Is this guy actually notable? 80% of the references on the page cite works that are directly written by him. Can we establish enough notability from third-party reliable sources alone? Currently the page reads like a cover letter to a job application: "X said that Christopher is a great guy, Y said that Christopher is an amazing guy, here are all his rare interviews, and here is his job history" (paraphrased, obviously).

The overwhelming majority of Google hits are either LinkedIn pages, promotional pages, company staff lists, blogs, columnist profiles, articles that the subject has written themselves, or a one-sentence very passing mention of the subject (e.g. "Thus it was rather odd that Christopher Joye in the Financial Review last week would suggest that contrary to popular myth, there is no housing affordability crisis."). --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete such glowing article with testimonials... I thought it was an WP:AUTOBIO. There is a lack of indepth third party coverage of him as the subject. Fails WP:BIO LibStar (talk) 00:29, 2 November 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 14:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of common words in Sanskrit and Tamil[edit]

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

A single user has cross-wiki spammed this article in en.wiki as well as Hindi, Sanskrit and Tamil wikis, all with no sources. It appears to be a piece of original research. There are doubtless scholarly articles on the relationship between Sanskrit and Tamil, but unless there is some basis in reliable sources to support this specific list it has to go. There may be sources in Indian languages I am not able to search for. Mccapra (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's all unsourced, and an unnecessary content fork of Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil (there might be borrowings that went the opposite direction, but nothing is mentioned about borrowing in this article anyway). The list can be easily extended to epic length with good sources, but WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. –Austronesier (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, someones point of view (as to what constitutes a common word) and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Ajf773 (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dicitonary (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Peter Ormond 💬 07:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Devokewater ^(talk) 13:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm not opposed to a transwiki to Wiktionary as an appendix, though I'm not sure the extent to which think they'd appreciate it there. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:57, 7 November 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 14:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel and Miguel Falcon Græsdal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Winning the national accordion championships is not notable, and the sources are either not independent or trivial local news (i.e. not NRK, but its local branch NRK Møre og Romsdal. We also have a variant of WP:REFBOMBing, namely WIKIBOMBing, in that the low-quality article has been spread across a number of Wikipedias. Geschichte (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 1 November 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 14:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eirik Gjen[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Tagged for notability for 10 years, and I can't see any, cf. Discogs. Geschichte (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 1 November 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 COVID-19 pandemic in India. No consensus for the article to be kept in the current state. Redirect preserves the history and could be recreated in future if suitable reliable sources can support it as a standalone article. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stranded in India[edit]

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

The article is about an informational web page of limited notability (and even more limited relevance) RegentsPark (comment) 12:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RegentsPark (comment) 12:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with COVID-19 pandemic in India: Non-notable as a standalone; thoroughly fails WP:GNG, though a single sentence in the linked article would be nice. Curbon7 (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to COVID-19 pandemic in India. I'm not opposed to a merge, though there's very little content that could be merged. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:58, 7 November 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 14:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uniqly[edit]

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

A company that does not meet the companies guideline or the general notability guideline due to a lack of coverage in independent sources. Sources I can find are either sponsored (NewsBTC, Herald, Bitcoinist), or advertorial (Cryptonews, Cointelegraph), with the rest being regurgitated press releases (Flaunt, Haute, Mid-day). Bringing this to AfD as I would expect objection to a proposed deletion, and not nominating for speedy deletion due to a lack of significance due to the sourcing available. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - crypto sites and churnalism are not up to scratch for WP:CORPDEPTH. This is just promotion - David Gerard (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is clearly not notable. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Gerard. I also can't find sources that satisfy both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The content of the article is also somewhat incomprehensible. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:59, 7 November 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 and redirect to List of the verified oldest people#100 verified oldest men. Sandstein 15:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saturnino de la Fuente García[edit]

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

Wikipedia has an almost infinite supply of WP:NOPAGE WP:PERMASTUBs, and this article is one of them. There is nothing saying that "age X" is notable and the article's subject is not even in the top 20 in the list of the verified oldest men. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question You mentioned that the subject of the article is "not even in the top 20" of the oldest verified men. Does this mean that once Mr Garcia reaches the age to be on the top 20 of that list, he is worthy of an article? Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Fakescientist8000. Whether or not he was among the top 20 oldest men of all time is a rather arbitrary point to make considering he is currently the oldest to be alive. OrchestralHuman (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Chicdat isn't claiming that on entry to the top-20 that that man has automatically earned the right to a stand-alone page. Saturnino and most other supercentenarians haven't accomplished or achieved anything of significance in their lives apart from reaching an extremely advanced age, which in the majority of cases doesn't create notability. In my opinion, at best, he deserves a mini bio and if and when he becomes more notable, then a page should obviously be created. MattSucci (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that he might be slightly more worthy of an article if he was in the top 20. Even so, this discussion isn't about that. It's about whether this article should be deleted or not. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm going to be civil here, but if this discussion is not about whether or not Mr. Garcia is within the top 20 verified men ever, why would you bring it up in the first place? Anywho, I will have to agree with MattSucci and DerbyCountyinNZ and say Delete this article. This man isn't notable whatsoever, as of now. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Stand alone article is not justified per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOPAGE. This would apply no matter where he appears in any longevity list. This may change if coverage in RS increases as he gets older. At present there is nothing to even justify a mini-bio List of Spanish supercentenarians. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of the verified oldest people#100 verified oldest men. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply not notable enough to merit a stand-alone page. Page contains/contained nothing other than mundane, irrelevant facts. Should he receive more news coverage in the future then a page or mini bio may be required. MattSucci (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of the verified oldest men like Joan Riudavets. The latter probably deserves a mini-bio at List of Spanish supercentenarians, but de la Fuente García not yet. Renewal6 (talk) 12:21, 6 November 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 04:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jasnya Jayadeesh[edit]

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

Concerns of WP:GNG and WP:N. Subject fails WP:ENT. No reliable source found on a WP:BEFORE. The sources found does not appear to be reliable. Two of the sources are photoshoot. There are no secondary sources found. Subject clearly fails. WP:NACTOR. Does not have notable roles in any movies. Other than being a participant of a reality show and in some non notable competitions, there is nothing notable to have an independent article as of now. I also doubt the creator of the article has COI with the subject. -Joxin 08:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Joxin 08:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -Joxin 08:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -Joxin 08:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. -Joxin 08:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete maashunter (talk) 09:25, 2 November 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 14:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knut Rolland[edit]

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Fails WP:NSCHOLAR. Young researcher. 0 hits in the Norwegian media archive, Retriever. Geschichte (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 1 November 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 14:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Brazilians[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbian Brazilian, these is no need for this page either. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. The diplomatic relations between the two countries don't have an article to merge to either. Geschichte (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and related discussion reasons. --Killuminator (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 07:35, 8 November 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 14:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Hill (Missouri)[edit]

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

This is an article I forgot to nominate in the summer, however 15 other AFDs were carried through. Here we have the same reason as the 15 others, "Short mountain that lacks sigcov and isn't distinguished in any way, failing WP:geoland and WP:gng". Geschichte (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mass-produced without a smidgeon of notability. Reywas92^Talk 12:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. –dlthewave ☎ 02:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:11, 7 November 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. Hog Farm _Talk 14:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Hill (Iron County, Missouri)[edit]

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

This is an article I forgot to nominate in the summer, however 15 other AFDs were carried through. Here we have the same reason as the 15 others, "Short mountain that lacks sigcov and isn't distinguished in any way, failing WP:geoland and WP:gng". Geschichte (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mass-produced without a smidgeon of notability. Reywas92^Talk 13:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. –dlthewave ☎ 02:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:11, 7 November 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) 09:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maslife[edit]

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

An article created, moved to draftspace by another editor, then moved back by the new editor who created it (and who has not responded to queries about COI : [54]). The references provided are a mix of profile items promoting the company founder, along with items about the company fundraising, and press releases about their app-based proposition by their partner firm, Paynetics, which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches find nothing better than the publicity-based items typical for a start-up; I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - PR fluff Dexxtrall (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete setting aside the poor behaviour and COI involved, the article is a promotional piece for a third rate app developer. Nothing in the article establishes notability. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sending it back to draftspace was appropriate before, but the creator has shown no interest in improving the articles, instead attempting to game Wikipedia. When the article was moved to draft space on 21 October, while the page main space page remained as a redirect to Draft:Maslife with a speedy deletion tag, the user blanked the deletion template and migrated the page back from draftspace to mainspace. WP:TNT Iskandar323 (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when this page came across my queue in New Page Reviewing, I just about flagged it for A7 before seeing all the sources. No reason to keep it if those sources aren't actually non-trival coverage. Bensci54 (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if you look it up at Companies House, you'll find this is a company with one employee (including its director!), and rather underwhelming assets, that has just survived compulsory strike-off. I appreciate that the article has a number of dubious references explaining how the business is about to become enormous. But at the moment it isn't, so it's way, way too soon. In the event that the company takes off, and someone writes something meaningfully independent, the article can be recreated. Elemimele (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd possibly go for WP:G11 based off of the edit history of the page, but a standard delete is fine when the company's coverage fails to meet WP:ORGCRIT. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:13, 7 November 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 14:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tapanuli Atletik[edit]

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

I don't know much about this team or the league, but I can't see how this passes WP:GNG or currently qualifies for an article. Found very little results online to suggest otherwise. Govvy (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Not notable. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:07, 7 November 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) 09:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gaffner[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. 2 or less Google News hits for "Robert Gaffner", "Bob Gaffner", "Robert H. Gaffner". OurCampaigns.com is not a reliable source per 2 RFCs. Was never elected to federal office so does not pass WP:NPOL. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles for running as candidates in elections they did not win; the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one and losing. But there's no credible claim here that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independently of unsuccessful candidacies ("Chief Accounts Analyst-Special Assignments" is not an inherently notable job), and the referencing is not establishing a reason to deem his candidacy as more special than everybody else's candidacies: the footnotes are 9/10 raw tables of election results that aren't support for the notability of unsuccessful candidates at all, and 1/10 a local obituary on the website of a radio station in his hometown, which isn't enough coverage to get him over the bar all by itself if it's the only journalistic source that can be found. Bearcat (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NPOLITICIAN having never been elected to office, neither does it pass GNG JW 1961^Talk 23:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perennial candidate fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 04:17, 6 November 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) 09:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. Mario Belougi[edit]

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

Obvious COI or possibly even UPE going on - 3 obvious socks have now been editing this article and the draft version (Draft:J. Mario Belougi). Copy-pasted into main by one of the socks today after they spammed like 2-3 dozen editors demanding that the article be published. Can't be "moved" to draft as the draft still exists, shouldn't be turned into a cross-namespace redirect, and I assume any attempt to draftify or redirect will be reverted by enthusiastic socks anyway, so here we are.

We begin with terrible text-source integrity - I removed like half of the article because it was making assertions that were baldly not backed up by the sources. None of the ones I removed so much as mentioned Belougi, including the 10-minute BBC radio excerpt I listened to in its entirety. There were also two instances of sources with the same URL but different title and/or website cited, in an apparent effort to literally invent additional sources.

I didn't find any better sources on a search. Of what remains in the article, #1 is accessible and mentions Belougi although I have no basis for assessing its reliability. #2 is password-locked for me so I can't assess it. #3 is hard paywalled. Given the text-source integrity issues, we cannot AGF that these are reliable, significant, or even so much as mention Belougi. Clearly, in the absence of actual reliable sources, we cannot retain this article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: in complete agreement with the nominators reasoning - I thought something was going on COI-UPE-wise here and opened an SPI where all three were blocked JW 1961^Talk 15:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cite #1, the kabarpemuda.com link, is a news blog that was set up two months ago, and most of its content is copied from other sources. It simply doesn't have the track record to be a reliable source - I wouldn't be surprised at all if it were a sponsored site set up for PR purposes. - MrOllie (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost of the mind that this is CSD G3. It's particularly suspicious that the photo creation is Turkish, that there's no a serious lack of Indonesian language sources (the closest I can kind is a passing mention of a social activist from Sulawesi called Arie Belougi [55]). The Indonesian version of the article looks to be complete fabrication (I'm assuming this is what the English article used to look like). The picture itself looks similarly fabricated (clothing is unlike anything one would wear in Dili in the 1990s given the weather and style of the time). Fails WP:V. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have read through the one Indonesian language source [56]; claims he is the younger brother of Arie Beloughi. There's still seems no possibility of verification for any of the claims made, even if we accept this is not fabricated, this still fails the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This got to be a HOAX. Reverse google image search leads to this image of https://preen.ph/67265/erwan-heussaff-reveals-his-secret-to-glowing-skin --WomenProj (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, I didn't even think to try reverse-searching the image. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:17, 6 November 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. Sandstein 12:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrite in a Hippy Crypt[edit]

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

Not notable GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC) Ridiculously named one-man band with less-than-stellar sourcing: two of the sources are about ridiculous band names, one of them is a dead link and the other is a less-than-trivial mention which only lists the name of the band alongside other band names. The others are bandcamp and the site of the record label, which are neither independent nor reliable. During a google search I didn't find much better sources: this looks okay, but I can't read it since it's subscription based, this is a wordpress blog, and the text is promotional. The download link is just the icing on the crap cake. This is again a promotional text. This is as short as it gets, and the site looks like a blog to me (again). This is a freaking blog again, and it's also an interview. I have also found some other blogs, but I'm not gonna cite them all. So, it looks like this (ridiculously named) one-man project has attracted some attention in some circles, but I don't think this is enough and Wikipedia-worthy. Asides from these, all I found were the usual youtube, trivial mentions, download links. Not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - falls well short of established notability Dexxtrall (talk) 10:33, 1 November 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 Matisyahu discography#Live albums. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Five7Seven2 Live[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM lacking chart ranking, third-party reviews, in-depth discussion in the media. Binksternet (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matisyahu discography#Live albums. Fails WP:NALBUM – there are a few brief mentions advertising its release in reliable sources like Paste and Hot Press, but nothing that could be remotely considered in-depth coverage. As you might expect for a free download exclusively available from a single website, there are no reviews either. Richard3120 (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matisyahu discography#Live albums. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Cooperation Council Youth Athletics Championships[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This competition receives regular coverage in the Middle East's English-language press [57][58][59][60] and gets plenty more in the Arabic-language press of the region. This subject meets general notability on this basis. SFB 10:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:34, 1 November 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. In there end there seems a consensus that notability has not been lasting and thus there is a consensus to delete. While there were suggestions that there might be an alternative to deletion, no concrete suggestion was made as to what that might be. A passing reference was made to the GNG, but keep !voters failed to explain why the assertion of WP:BLP1E not being satisfied is wrong based on policy or guidelines. As such there does appear to be a consensus to delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Frazier[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wesley Frazier is not notable beyond a single event - her short running career in High School. Although her event was covered by multiple sources in 2013, neither Frazier nor her younger sister had any more events widely covering them - especially after both graduated high school. Thus the article should be deleted per WP:1E.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see relevant non trivial sources like USA Today which calls her the "Nation’s top girl’s distance runner". We need to explore WP:ATD. Lightburst (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The number of standing records alone seems to result in notability. She wouldn't be the first one to have notability in a moment, only to fade away. Perhaps WP:ATD could make sense if there is already an article that deals with the records and such currently addressed on her page. Thmazing (talk) 06:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SPORTCRIT in that she has never competed at the highest level of her sport, incidentally not at the second highest level either, in fact not at any kind of continental or international level. High school records are not notable and the coverage about them is not significant. Geschichte (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete High school athletes who never moved to a higher level of the sport are not notable. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems like a great example of why we have BLP1E and why high school coverage is generally ignored. If she's garnered no other significant coverage in the last 6 years I think it's safe to say she's a private, non-notable individual at this point. JoelleJay (talk) 18:23, 6 November 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. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shurijeh, Razavi Khorasan[edit]

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

We have separate articles on Shuricheh-ye Olya and Shuricheh-ye Sofla (upper and lower Shurijeh). They are all poorly sourced and stubbish. Not sure which ones should be redirected to the other. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Shurijeh is one of the villages of Khorasan Razavi province in Iran and has the necessary notability, new materials and sources have been added to the article. And the quality of the article shows that the article needs to be kept. --Hogo-2020 (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no evidence here that the actual topic of the article is legally recognised in any form. This is essentially an article about two villages (which may or may not be recognised), neither of which is actually called "Shurijeh". WP:GEOLAND #1 require legal recognition of the populated place, which is not conferred automatically by the Iranian census which in fact includes lots of places that are not actually communities. No evidence here either of a WP:GNG pass. The dam article is about the dam, not the locality, and indeed describes the dam as being located at "PolGazi village of Marzdaran". The Kashraf river map shows nothing about this supposed locality. GEONet Names server is inaccurate for the same reasons that GNIS is inaccurate. FOARP (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND.--Alireza Khabib (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of GEOLAND? How does it meet this guide? FOARP (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That user is a brand new sock of User:Hoseinkandovan, who literally just copied Waddles' vote. 39.121.228.67 (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. 39.121.228.67 (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the current sourcing in the article does not establish notability per WP:GNG. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 04:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article refers to a region, which is not shown to have significance. Instead, the two articles on lower and upper Shurijeh should be added to, as those are the two populated places that should pass GEOLAND Gorden 2211 (talk) 11:00, 12 November 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 Moot. The nominator is indef-blocked and nobody else wants to delete. Mergers can be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 17:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar at the ASEAN Para Games[edit]

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

Fails WP:CS and WP:RS. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sourcing issue can be fixed easily by going through the games' games for the references. – robertsky (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ASEAN Para Games since the main article is small. Also, merge the following to the main article: East Timor at the ASEAN Para Games and Myanmar at the ASEAN Para Games --Bluemask (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ASEAN Para Games per some reason. 223.219.212.152 (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lok Priya Devi[edit]

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

WP:NOTINHERITED, being a sister of a famous poet doesn't make her automatically notable. She did no significant work to meet WP:NPOET. Htanaungg (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't see full copies of the many sources already cited, but they certainly suggest WP:BASIC. What's wrong with the sources in the article? One possible problem is that one source seems to describe (per the Google snippet summary) Lok Priya Devi Joshi (1955–2017), who is clearly not the same as the subject of this article (whose dates are 1898–1960) but who may also be notable. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're the same person. It's just different calendars. I also think the nom should address the GNG question. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She meets NPOET#1 by the way, as she's one of the first Nepali women writers/poets. And she apparently has a literary award named after her. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool: Very interesting. Would you mind adding the sources (hopefully it's in English) where the literary award was named after her? I'd love to add it in the lede and help expand the article if possible. --WomenProj (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only place I've found the award mentioned online in English. It says, Sundas, Lakhi Devi : A poet, short story writer and critic; recipient of Ratna Sree, Lokpriya Devi and Bhana puraskar; President of the Nepali Sahitya Sammelan. Online coverage in Nepali are all of the same type: usually a mention in coverage about people who have won it[61][62][63]. This, also in Nepali, lists Lok Priya Devi among the 17 Nepali writers whose busts are at the "Literature pilgrimage, Kapildham".

To summarise, I think to get the article expanded, we'll need Bada Kaji to find some time himself, at least for now. He has listed so many references at least some of which seem to have SIGCOV; I can't think of any reason not to assume good faith here. The one link that's in the further reading section is a decent biography (also in Nepali) which can be used to expand the article as well. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article. Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 20:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She's only a woman, so of course we should concentrate on the few words that say who her brother was, rather than on the rest of the article that describes and sources her own achievements. What century are we living in? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can understand why nominator thinks WP:NPOET may not be possible because of language differences and non-availability of online materials. However, I am not sure why nominator thinks WP:NOTINHERITED. Nontheless, with WP:GF, the references seems reliable and relatable, although I must admit that I have no access to the offline references presented in the article. nirmal (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is mentioned in a number of reliable sources including Nepal Encyclopedia, Nepali Literature: Background & History, Women Writers of Nepal (Profiles and Perspectives), Indian Literature Volume 37, and other reference works. In addition, she published her poems in a number of important Nepali magazines, along with the literary supplements to the national newspaper Gorkhapatra, the oldest newspaper in Nepal. All of that combined is proof of notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 04:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquin Domagoso[edit]

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

Being a son of a mayor doesn't make him automatically notable. He just started his career and has no significant roles in any films or TV series. Htanaungg (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is notable enough, he hast been cast in many television shows, there are a number of independent sources, and that makes him notable enough. —It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 01:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is not because he is the mayor's son that it deserves to be deleted. He is better known because he is the son of a former actor and is now the mayor. many show and series are included and all sources included in the article are popular reliable and well -known online news websites and licensed from the Philippines. — 7starunited (talk • page) 03:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In depth reliable secondary sources exists independent of the subject. Definitely pass WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV - Wakowako (talk) 06:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has reference/s from GMA Network, Philippine Entertainment Portal, Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Manila Times which are all reliable sources. The article needs expanding though.TheHotwiki (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ENT per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable not only because of his father. Also, several reliable sources exist. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ctrlwiki and SBKSPP. Drags4U (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on what I can see he meets notability. Chelokabob (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Popo Iskandar[edit]

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

A non-notable painter doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. Htanaungg (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant output, plenty of references to his work online; the bar is always going to be higher for non-Western artists.Nwhyte (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My first reply for an AfD note, unsure where to reply best. This is a resonably well known Indonesian artist, and at least 1 monograph has been written about his artistic work of more than 5 decades (One cant live from 50 years of painting of one is not reasonable successful.)
While Indonesia is not an important art market, local painters with decades of success and local achievements should get a chance,。Well, I leave it up to the community to judge, dont want to put too much efforts in this one...--Mundugumor (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a monograph on an artists exists, then the artists criterion 3: "... such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book ..." Vexations (talk) 16:15, 4 November 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 04:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Lord Bert[edit]

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

I don't believe the novel meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG as I was unable to locate substantive reviews (excluding blogs and other self-published sources). There is not a good redirect target as the author does not have a Wikipedia article. DanCherek (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book has 557 ratings on Goodreads. There are very many books with more ratings on Goodreads that (rightly) do not have Wikipedia pages.Nwhyte (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This sounds cute and like something I'd want to check out later, but it hasn't been covered in places that Wikipedia would see as reliable independent sources. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two reviews on niche Internet pages does not IMHO meet GNG or NBOOK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:15, 3 November 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 04:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Wand Productions[edit]

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

A defunct company that lacks in-depth coverage in secondary, reliable sources (WP:GNG/WP:42). No results in WP:VG/SE or major Romanian media outlets. IceWelder [✉] 10:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 10:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 10:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 10:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. BOVINEBOY2008 10:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly merge to Cabela's Big Game Hunter since series they are best known for --Masem (t) 21:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is no coverage of the company, a merge is infeasible. Bovineboy2008's comment actually already constitutes WP:G7. IceWelder [✉] 09:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G7 does not apply since there is more than one significant contributor. ~ GB fan 12:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find a single reliable source about it, not even a regional source.Mommmyy (talk) 18:41, 1 November 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 04:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madagascar–Spain relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is very little to these relations: no embassies, agreements, trade or migration. The article is based on one source describing an incident involving a Spanish fishing vessel. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surely we do not need a page for every single permutation of bilateral relations between the countries of the world? Neither of them maintains an embassy in the other’s capital. Article admits that Madagascar is not an important country for Spain, and is badly written. Nwhyte (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A relations page is not a collection of happenstances involving two countries. The page was clearly created by a Spain completionist, violating WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Geschichte (talk) 11:07, 1 November 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 04:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhuu[edit]

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

The article seemingly describes a Vaishnavi term but which contains no secondary citations or really any context. There is no mention of Bhumi (the earth goddess) nor the Garuda Purana (which describes Bhu as one of the three forms of Lakshmi in Vaishnavi tradition. If I was going to set out to learn about the concept of the Bhu-mandala, I would most likely not find this article particularly helpful in that pursuit. Basically, the article is without any clear scope or notability.–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, due to lack of coverage in general media. Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Given sources are specialized fringe topics sites and only have passing mentions of the word. Online search also did not give anything significant to merit an article. --Venkat TL (talk) 06:08, 4 November 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 00:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sand Grain Studios[edit]

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

A defunct company that lacks in-depth coverage in secondary, reliable sources (WP:GNG/WP:42). No results in WP:VG/SE or major Romanian media outlets. IceWelder [✉] 10:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 10:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 10:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 10:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. BOVINEBOY2008 10:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly merge to Cabela's Big Game Hunter (The series they are most notable for)? --Masem (t) 21:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is no coverage of the company, a merge is infeasible. Bovineboy2008's comment actually already constitutes WP:G7. IceWelder [✉] 09:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G7 does not apply since there is more than one significant contributor. ~ GB fan 12:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any reliable source on it. Mommmyy (talk) 18:18, 1 November 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. There's clear consensus here that a standalone article currently isn't warranted. The argument that there's no merge-worthy content has not been rebutted, and as such deletion is the only possible outcome. If the creator or someone else wanted to recreate this in draftspace they would be welcome, but I see no purpose in draftifying a single sentence. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkinson v ASB Bank Ltd[edit]

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

It doesn't seem like a firm ruling has been made on what constitutes notability RE: law and legal cases, but if the contents of this article represent all that is said in the source about this case then it doesn't seem particularly notable or worthwhile to include. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There do appear to be some hits in textbooks. I would like to see more of an effort to find these. BD2412 T 17:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The best source I could find is Barry Allan, "Trust Me, I'm Your Husband: Undue Influence and Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge" (2006) 11:2 Otago L Rev 247, which is available on HeinOnline. There are some extended comments on the case in that article but nothing major anywhere else I could see. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the article on Undue influence - I don't think the case stands be itsself but contributes ot the caselaw surrounding the term, and should be included within the article NealeWellington (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft namespace. The author, Kiwisheriff, created many such articles and has returned, often much later, to flesh many of them out. This article has been in a substub state for over six years and putting it in draft namespace will give a six-month time limit for it to be improved before deletion.-gadfium 01:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Undue influence per nom and NealeWellington. The case contributes to the topic but lacks sufficient notability to stand on its own.--ERAMnc 07:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no content to be merged. The entire article reads: "Wilkinson v ASB Bank Ltd [1998] 1 NZLR 674; (1997) 8 TCLR 178 is a cited case regarding undue influence". That tells us nothing about the topic of undue influence, or what the case was about. Sandstein 17:06, 9 November 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. Nominator is a sock. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Periklis Papapostolou[edit]

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

Unsourced, not notable? deity 00:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. deity 00:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The page is without sources because it was vandalized by an IP. It's always smart to check that out before nominating something as unreferenced. This page corroborates that he played several seasons in a WP:FPL, but I would ideally like to see the whole thing corroborated. Geschichte (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 1 November 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.