< November 14	November 16 >

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. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Blackman[edit]

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

This page does not meet the notability requirements specified in WP:N Idag (talk) 14:18, 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)} 14:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is a borderline case for WP:NPROF C1 based on citation counts([1], [2]) or C7 based on the number of times he's quoted in media on legal topics ([3], [4], [5]), and for WP:NAUTHOR based on the reviews I added for his books, but I'm not sure if we quite get to notability. I would encourage the nom to make a more detailed case for deletion, however; I was considering !voting speedy keep because the nom does not make a clear, specific argument. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on my read of WP:N, there’s just not enough here for this person to be notable. It’s hard to prove a negative, but the subject of this article hasn’t really done anything notable that wouldn’t apply to pretty much any other law professor. Idag (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. fails WP:NPROF but has 2 papers with > 100 citations so may meet it in the future; the youtube incident as well as his filings to the Supreme Court are not sufficient to pass general notability. --hroest 15:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The subject here has a reasonable start on WP:NAUTHOR with 3 reviews of two books in total, a weak start on WP:NPROF with several papers having good citation numbers and interviews with the media on legal topics, and a weak claim to GNG, with moderate coverage in the CNN article and Inside Higher Ed articles. While no one of these on its own would convince me, the combination leads me to a weak keep. Agree that it is bordering on WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I added one more book review (making four in the article) and didn't add another because I wasn't convinced of its reliability (doi:10.2139/ssrn.2518484). I think there's enough here for a borderline case for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 4 reviews from independent sources on 2 books is enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR as creating a well known work that is the subject of multiple independent reviews (criterion 3). Taken along with the coverage of the heckling incident and mention of his blog as a top 100 blog by the ABA Journal seems enough to make the subject notable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:27, 23 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. The decision is undecided between keep and redirect. Sandstein 09:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsey Orta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BLP1E, all of the notability arises from his filming the Killing of Eric Garner and the subsequent police harassment and arrest. Like nearly all arrests that generate coverage, there was also coverage following his release, but all of the coverage of Orta references his filming of Garner's killing, and as such the article fails WP:BLP1E, and nothing in this article is not already covered at Killing of Eric Garner. This was previously brought to AFD and redirected, however that has been reverted. Nableezy 23:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. nableezy - 23:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC) 23:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is extensive coverage of Orta's imprisonment and treatment throughout that extends far beyond his role in the Garner case. The Verge wrote a full-length feature article on Orta. On Orta's treatment in prison, see New York Amsterdam News, the Rolling Stone, the Gothamist, and Insider, among many others. If this was BLP1E, there would only be coverage of his role in filming Garner's death. Each of the sources above show that not to be the case. czar 00:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Verge article opens with Ramsey Orta filmed the killing of Eric Garner. The video traveled far, but it wouldn't get justice for his dead friend. Instead, the NYPD would exact their revenge through targeted harassment and eventually imprisonment — Orta's punishment for daring to show the world police brutality. It makes clear that Orta's notability is specifically tied to filming Garner's killing and the resulting harassment from that. So does every other source about him. Every single source about Orta discusses him within the context of having filmed Garner's killing. The Gothamist opens with Ramsey Orta, Who Filmed The Police Killing Of Eric Garner. The Insider opens with The police officer who fatally choked Eric Garner has been fired. The guy who filmed it is still in prison., NY Amsterdam News opens with The man who filmed Eric Garner’s death continues to suffer at the hands of law enforcement. The Rolling Stone opens with Ramsey Orta, Man Who Filmed Eric Garner’s Arrest, Has Been Released From Prison. There is no coverage of Orta outside of the context of his having filmed Garner's killing. nableezy - 14:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And after that paragraph the entire rest of the feature-length article is about Orta's prison treatment and multiple law enforcement-related incidents covering his life independent from the Garner case. I've already covered how the other articles are about Orta's life and imprisonment, not his connection to Garner, no matter how the lede opens. It is absolutely significant coverage. czar 23:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking at the same article as I am? After that paragraph the rest of the article is about his imprisonment? The article talks about Garner and his killing throughout. Five of the first six non-single line paragraphs are about him filming Garner's death. And throughout it frames the imprisonment as a result of Orta's filming Garner's death. It is inextricably linked, which is why you cant find a single article that talks about Orta without talking about his having filmed Garner's killing. The Verge article, and every other one, is very clearly placing all of this in the context of the filming of Garner's death. Orta, outside of filming Garner's death and the resulting police harassment campaign is likely to remain a low-profile individual. And everything in this article, every single piece of information, is already in the article on Eric Garner's killing. Yes, there is one article about Orta that provides significant coverage about him. But in the context of his having filmed Garner's death. And oh by the way, that source was already in the article when it was redirected by consensus in the first AFD. nableezy - 03:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are allowed to mention his connection to Garner. The bar is whether Orta is well-documented as an individual beyond the context of that single event (BLP1E) and from the aforementioned reams of material on other aspects of his life, the answer is yes. He is a high-profile individual. czar 11:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They do not mention his connection to Garner, they place the entirety of the coverage within his connection to garner. Again, what BLP1E says is if the person is only covered within the context of the event. And no, he is not a high profile individual. If he were, you would find coverage unrelated to his "connection" to Garner. You likewise havent addressed the fact that the Verge article was already in the article redirected by consensus in the first AFD. Just asserted your right to ignore that consensus. nableezy - 12:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the coverage is enough for notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Killing of Eric Garner.-KH-1 (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has clearly gained notability independently of Eric Garner through his treatment by the NYPD. I don't accept the argument that mentioning that he filmed Eric Garner's death means that everything else about him is necessarily subservient to that fact. Yes, his treatment by the NYPD is a result of filming Eric Garner's death, but deletion debates should not turn on causality; they are discrete events and should be treated as such. Mlb96 (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm indecisive here. Either keep, per Czar's comment, or merge/redirect to Killing of Eric Garner. I'm not fully supportive/opposing to either. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:00, 19 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 03:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Science Review[edit]

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

Non-notable website. No significant coverage. I love how it says "In 2020, ASR became notable" with the reference being an unreliable blog. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:N or WP:WEB. I only see WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS when searching for sources. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 00:37, 22 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 03:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BFSF U-14 Academy Cup[edit]

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

I'm pretty sure that no Under-14 tournament anywhere in the world is actully Wiki-notable. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Little League World Series? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a couple of additional sources. I feel there is enough coverage here from multiple publications for this subject to meet WP:GNG NemesisAT (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: none of the teams are even notable enough for a wikipedia page and wikipedia:foobtall doesnt cover tournies that low down the age ratings. note that 2021–22 BFSF U-14 Academy Cup would be included by proxy.Muur (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. It's a local competition controlled by Bangladesh Football Supporters Forums, not by BFF. Looks like same press release reposted on several newspaper. I don't see enough WP:SIGCOV. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local youth tournament, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are several articles form multiple websites that focus on the tournament, so how does it not meet GNG? NemesisAT (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Super local youth tournament is not notable. 2021–22 BFSF U-14 Academy Cup should also be deleted based on this AfD since it's about the same tournament. Since the tournament itself is not notable, the specific year's version should also be deleted. Then also Sheikh Russel Smirity U-15 Gold Cup probably as well, seems like the creator is creating one for every youth tournament in Bangladesh. Local youth tournaments are not really notable. If it was a international FIFA U15 tournament, then sure, but a small local youth tournament, there are many of those in every place in the world. RedPatch (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it not notable? You appear to be dismissing the subject based on what it is, rather than actually considering the sources present in the article. NemesisAT (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm surprised by comments like "no evidence of notability". This article for example appears to be reliable, original reporting, and focuses on this event. I've only conducted an English search, I suspect further sourcing could be found in the local language. NemesisAT (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the sources, they all seem to be 'Sports Correspondent' or 'Sports Desk' rather than the journalist's name and much of the content appears to be derived from press releases or, in some cases, directly from the organisation running the tournament. See [6] where the content is from the general secretary and same with this one. The coverage across the sources seems little better if not on par with the typical coverage that any pre-season friendly match gets. Better coverage may well exist in Bengali. WP:SPORTSEVENT is quite a high bar for notability with the guideline stating that news coverage should be extensive (e.g., outside of the week of its occurrence and in non-local newspapers) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It only needs to meet one bar, if GNG is met it should be sufficient. Thanks for your analysis, I'm glad at least one other person is giving this some thought! NemesisAT (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be best to see if anyone is able to find any coverage in Bengali as that will likely make or break this article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For a U-14 tournament to be notable it would have to have received major coverage. But I can't see anything outside of Bangladesh or anything else that sets this aside form the many other youth tournaments run in other countries. Unless proof of the otherwise can be found then it shouldn't remain on Wikipedia. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Local youth tournament, and all the coverage fails to meet WP:GNG. GNG requires not just multiple sources, but also independent sources. As noted above, the information all seems to be coming from the same singular source, so multiple "sports desks" reporting this information does not meet GNG. If this were an international U-15 tournament, I could definitely see the notability, but this is no more notable than any other local youth tournament. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the information is coming from the same source. The article I linked to above had photographs attributed to the paper itself. It appears to me to be independent. NemesisAT (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with all the reasons above and wrote about this on the wikiproject talk page section too. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just found Sheikh Russel U-18 Gold Cup and 2021–22 Sheikh Russel U-18 Gold Cup also created by the same editor. Those could be added to the list. It "links" teams, but it's not actual teams. It's linking Bangladesh villages, not an actual football team. RedPatch (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Behind the moors (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "nom" doesn't actually give any reason why the subject isn't notable. NemesisAT (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly obviously, because it's a tournament played between obviously non-notable teams, with non-notable players. Indeed, one of the "sources" even says that it's being run to look for possibly new talented players. And of course, because it fails GNG. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. It's a U14 football tournament that fails WP:GNG. If it was U19 perhaps there would be a fair shout for keep, though. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you judging this on the age of the players? Are you saying given the same coverage, you would support keep if this was an under 19 tournament? NemesisAT (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, children's sport coverage is trivial by nature. Geschichte (talk) 13:49, 22 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 03:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyped es[edit]

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

Non notable company. No significant coverage in reliable sources, including those cited. (t · c) buidhe 23:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 23:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 23:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant mentions from other spanish-language sources, low follower count on socials. Nothing else indicating that the site is yet prominent or otherwise notable at this time. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:57, 17 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 merge to Seumas McNally. Sandstein 18:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DX-Ball[edit]

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

Google and Archive.org searches yield very few results covering DX-Ball—a common notability problem for non-commercial freeware games prior to the smartphone age. Its sequel is no different, unfortunately. Note that the sequel's article's sources are almost entirely primary, which is not good for establishing a subject's notability. The first article could be merged into Breakout (video game) and the second into that or Longbow Games, the sequel's developer. Free Media Kid$ 02:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Free Media Kid$ 02:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete/merge/redirect. Two cited sources are reliable (PC Zone) but fail SIGCOV. Right now the article is mostly unreferenced and violates OR/CITE, and GNG is unclear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Seumas McNally. As someone who played DX-Ball in my childhood, I really wanted to find something to make it pass WP:GNG, but it's just not happening. The coverage in Mladá fronta DNES [7] is the only thing out there that counts. Like said above, PC Zone coverage is on the passing mention levels, and Moby gives dubious sources and a WP:ROUTINE short Download CNET review that's there for majority of products hosted over there. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge DX-Ball into DX-Ball 2. While I agree that two articles both for DX-Ball and DX-Ball 2 are a bit much, it would be a 'shame' to have both deleted. DX-Ball and sequels have been a staple of arcade video game history and as such simply deserves an article in wikipedia. Note: Merging the articles into Breakout (video game) (i.e. a different video game!) and/or Longbow Games (i.e. a development studio, not a game!) would be inappropriate as it would diffuse the encyclopedic character. My suggestion is as follows:
- (1) Merge the contents of DX-Ball article into the article for DX-Ball 2 where relevant.
- (2) Redirect DX-Ball to DX-Ball 2.
- (3) Trim the contents of DX-Ball 2 regarding the "excessive" version history as much as possible.
- (4) Also include the sequel DX-Ball 20th Anniversary Edition which was released on Steam in 2018 (https://store.steampowered.com/app/922400/DXBall_2_20th_Anniversary_Edition/), where it seems to be quite popular by the way.
- (5) Search and include more references to back up the information that remains in the merged article for DX-Ball 2.

If there is no objection to my suggestion, I would be absolutely willing to make the required changes. Should I simply proceed or is there some formality required? KR777 (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as multiple merge/redirect targets have been suggested (Breakout (video game), Longbow Games, Seumas McNally, and DX-Ball 2)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Seumas McNally, as both are more closely associated with his legacy than with Breakout or Longbow. There's a lot of cruft to leave behind in the merge—only need what the reliable sources have written. Also note that DX-Ball 2 is tagged for AfD but not bundled above. czar 16:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both DX-Ball and DX-Ball 2 into McNally's article per Czar's arguments. IceWelder [✉] 08:48, 23 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. Anyone wishing to recreate as a draft may lodge a request at WP:REFUND. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hossein Nouri[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN article was moved from draft by creator after being declined, by-passing the afc process, so bringing it here for discussion. Theroadislong (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notaibly.--Alireza Khabib (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: While I am not sure that Nouri passes WP:NMUSICIAN I think this needs to go to Draft rather than be deleted in order to give the creating editor a chance to investigate and provide sourcing. According to Music Times he has a legendary voice. Interpreted literally this means his voice is not real, of course, since it exists only in legends! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a few more citations and improved the article. He meets WP:MUSICBIO due to winning several awards and competitions. Chelokabob (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, I didn't find anything that convinced me that the subject matter of this article was notable. Mardetanha (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:BEFORE shows that the person isn't notable. 120.51.172.127 (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could not find significant coverage. Mathieu Vouillamoz (talk) 15:22, 19 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. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 03:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tehreek-e-Soutul Auwliya[edit]

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

Involvement or sponsorship of a variety of minor events; basically advertorial. Routine references on he events-- provincial acope only. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:Tehreek-e-Soutul Awliya or Keep but move to the correct the article title. I am not sure whether this organisation is notable or not. Most reliable English-language sources (cited by the article) call it Tehreek-e-Soutul Awliya (no "u" in "Awliya"), though one source^{Sudarshan News} uses Tehreek Soutul Auliya. If the article were moved to draft, then it could be improved. With respect of news, Tehreek-e-Soutul Awliya is at a natural disadvantage because it is anti-violence and against the destruction non-Muslim religious buildings. We should be careful not to let a news bias influence Wikipedia's coverage of Islamic organisations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:13, 26 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) 05:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:13, 15 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 FK Mladost Lučani. Claims of significant coverage clearly rebutted in the discussion. As noted by a number editors, WP:GEOFEAT requires significant coverage in multiple sources. Association with any club or the leave of matches played at any ground has no bearing on whether a stadium is notable in itself, only the coverage that the stadium has received Fenix down (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mladost Stadium (Lučani)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. There is a dispute over whether this subject is notable. Prior to the creation of a stub, this page was a redirect, which should be restored if there is a consensus that the subject is not notable. Please see past discoussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_14#Mladost Stadium (Lučani). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Rosguill: Prior to the creation of a redirect, this page was an article for almost 15 years. The current introduction is missleading. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the venues of Serbian SuperLiga. What's more do you need for 'notability'? Olos88 (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to FK Mladost Lučani. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources for a standalone article. Polyamorph (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, there are five sources in the article, proving that the stadium really exists and is a venue of Serbian SuperLiga club. Olos88 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not great sources though. Where's the significant coverage that is an essential prerequisite for inclusion? Polyamorph (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being one of the venues of highest national division is enough for significance. That means for example being present in live TV broadcasting ([8]), press articles, hosting best clubs with best players in the country, etc. Should I really look for more sources, which will just confirm what's obvious? Olos88 (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still not significant coverage of the stadium though. Polyamorph (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If being first league venue is not enough, then what, should we have articles only about Champions League finals and SuperBowl hosts? Thousands of other articles should be deleted in such case. Olos88 (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, not if they have significant coverage in reliable sources. Polyamorph (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In 2017 stadium even hosted UEFA Europa League game [9] Olos88 (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what? There is only one thing that makes a sporting venue notable for Wikipedia purposes, and one only: meeting the GNG with multiple reliable sources providing WP:SIGCOV. That's it. Ravenswing 10:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - top-level stadium. Giant Snowman 18:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's the policy justification for your opinion? Polyamorph (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've found something like this: WP:NVENUE Olos88 (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay. I specifically requested a policy rationale. Or is there a formal guideline? That would do, but this essay is neither. Polyamorph (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, what you would expect more for notability, if, as I guess, every single player, that runs on this pitch (during competition game) is considered as notable. Stadiums stands for years in one place and in club's whole history there may be just one or few venues, not like a squad, which changes every season. Olos88 (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. Does it meet either of those? Please can you provide WP:THREE sources showing in-depth coverage? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding how notability works here, we can't say something is notable just because it exists. We need in-depth reliable sources, as Spiderone and Ravenswing have also explained. Regarding your point about "every single player that runs" on a pitch" being notable - I very much disagree with that rule. It is why, in general, I stay away from football and sports related articles. Compare it with WP:NPROF, academics have a much much higher bar to pass. But alas that is how consensus works. For stadiums we require adherence to our general notability guidelines per WP:NBUILDING. Anyway, I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak. Cheers all Polyamorph (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article, giving some more informations and sources. These are obviously not scientific researches, but what kind of sources do you expect for the stadium. Every information is a fact (there is only small problem with capacity, one source gives 5.944 spectators (it is probably exact number of seating chairs), while all the others claim 8.000). I'm not claiming, that this object is notable because it exists, but because it is one of Serbian Superliga venues. And some word about WP:NFOOTBALL - we can agree with that or not, but it is a rule. I would find it very disproportional, if we have a lot of articles about footballers and at the same time we can't have articles about club's stadiums. Because we also have this: WP:NFOOTBALL, I suggest just to consider top-level football venues generally as notable (in this case we don't speak about some distinct league in Oceania, but about Serbia, where football has big popularity). This is also current practice, this kind of articles exists from years and also every other Serbian Super League venue (at least from current season) has it's own article in en-wiki. Olos88 (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of sources do we expect? We've explained that in detail, and shown you several links so that you can educate yourself on that count. As far as notability not being inherited goes, that is a longstanding and established guideline on Wikipedia, and twenty years in, the odds of that changing are pretty much zero; stadia are just never going to be presumptively notable. Now, on to the three sources you added.

[10] is from the website of the football club; it's a primary source, and does not count towards supporting notability.

[11] does not mention the stadium at all. I'm wondering why you felt this belonged in the article.

[12] doesn't say anything other than that the stadium got new lights. This is a trivial mention that fails under WP:SIGCOV. Ravenswing 22:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, what do you want to prove me with this comment. Especially by writting using bold "does not mention the stadium at all". I've added this sources to confirm extra informations, not to necessarily prove the notability by showing stadium presence in reliable sources. These kind of sources were already present in the article before, I just change it to inline citations. Olos88 (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to FK Mladost Lučani. To the keep proponents, I'm afraid you need to proffer a legitimate policy ground to back up your assertions. There is no notability guideline conferring presumptive notability on "top level" stadia (since the inevitable result would be that there's a DEK rink in Puerto Rico or a pickleball venue in Belize that you think is "notable") per WP:GEOFEAT, nor is there any notability guideline conferring presumptive notability on something that simply exists. Presuming that you're unfamiliar with the rules governing deletion, Olos88, in order to keep an article, a subject must meet WP:GNG, which requires that there be multiple, reliable, independent, third-party sources that discuss the subject in significant detail, and routine sports coverage is explicitly excluded. So ... the town's website doesn't count, and the team's website doesn't count, and the stadium's website doesn't count, and trivial mentions in the local media along the lines of "The game tonight at Mladost Stadium starts at 7 PM" don't count. What news articles have you found that discuss the stadium itself in significant detail? Ravenswing 10:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would argue that the notability of a stadium is WP:NOTINHERITED from its club but that's just my view Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: As it happens, it's also the view of the official guideline: "Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events." Ravenswing 20:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to FK Mladost Lučani per failing WP:SIGCOV - standalone article not justified. However, there is information on this article that is important to the football club. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, why does this or this source not provide "significant coverage"? I would say that this is enough. Olos88 (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are trivial mentions that list a handful of bare facts. I really do urge you to read through WP:GNG and gain an idea of what constitutes significant coverage. Ravenswing 00:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read it and I still think, that this source for example brings significant coverage and generally can be considered as suitable source for this article. Otherwise you can question for example this source (used here) or this (used here). Olos88 (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Database profile pages do not provide SIGCOV. In the same way, a footballer being on Soccerway, Transfermarkt, World Football etc. doesn't make them notable. If a reputable newspaper writes an article with significant portions focused on this stadium then it's a different matter. A database listing? Not the same at all Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think, that StadiumDB is something more than just a database, just look there. And still, I think that the fact that stadium is a top-level venue means more than a fact, that some reporter wrote an article about that stadium, even in reputable newspaper (which of course may also prove it's notability). Olos88 (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLAND has a much broader view of geographical locations, granting them presumptive notability. WP:GEOFEAT explicitly declines to give presumptive notability to buildings, stipulating that they need to pass the GNG.

Beyond that, you've certainly given at exhaustive length what you wish the relevant policies were. I hope you can understand, however, that deletions are determined based on what the policies say, instead. Ravenswing 18:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong keep Long standing top level stadium, used also for European competitions, enough sources (as already presented in RfD),so clearly a notable subject. Also all top level stadiums in professional leagues have articles and deleting this one would be a sign of a huge SYSTEMIC bias. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to FK Mladost Lučani per my comments to date in this discussion. If we are following the notability guidelines of WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT, then this does not pass on the evidence presented. The small amount of info about this stadium can easily be merged into the parent article. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED - the club being notable does not automatically make the stadium notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 20 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 03:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nayb Md. Tahmid Islam[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL Behind the moors (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no FPL appearances, fails NFOOTBALL. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:11, 17 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. It's WP:SNOWING brimstone on this one. Hog Farm _Talk 21:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC) Hog Farm _Talk 21:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Politics (Discord server)[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains^(talk) 22:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's like a page for subreddits. Discord is a very notable social medium and this server, while not as public as subreddits, has wikipedia worthy events. Also a random village in idk what country isn't notable either but still gets a wikipedia page. TheGroninger (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jurta talk 22:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:N or WP:WEB. The comment above appears to be a combination of WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:ITEXISTS, and WP:ITSNOTABLE. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lacks notability.Athena-en (talk)08:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability.Leomk (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 09:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A "Discord server" seems about as notable as your average subreddit, which is to say, not at all. KidAd • SPEAK 03:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. Mann Mann (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nomination, the topic does not has notability in secondary reliable sources, failing WP:GNG – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:24, 22 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 21:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Escaping Dad[edit]

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

Does not come close to passing WP:NFILM. ––FormalDude ^talk 22:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude ^talk 22:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like this was made and aired on Lifetime to almost zero fanfare from independent, secondary sources. There's mention of the film in passing in later coverage, but not enough to establish how it's notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No references. No independent reliable sources I can find. Four years released and zero critic reviews at https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/escaping_dad means this is a non notable film. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find sufficient sources for it to pass WP:NFILM. Suonii180 (talk) 00:45, 22 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 03:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Ackery[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform for aspiring political candidates to repost their campaign literature -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and to qualify for inclusion a candidate must either (a) show that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them into Wikipedia anyway (e.g. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) demonstrate a credible reason why their candidacy should be treated as much, much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance even if she loses (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). But this passes neither of those tests, is written very much more like a campaign brochure ("Ackery will provide an independent voice in contrast to the incumbent") than a properly neutral and objective encyclopedia article, and is referenced to a mix of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, glancing namechecks of her existence in sources that aren't about her in any non-trivial sense, and purely routine and run of the mill campaign coverage of a type and volume that every candidate in every election everywhere can always show. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a much stronger basis for enduring permanent notability than just declaring her candidacy in a future election. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Seems like clear WP:PROMO. KidAd • SPEAK 19:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:NPOL. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a tool for marketing a political candidate. Furthermore, the article is partially a coatrack for negative comments about the incumbent member for Hume. The article subject fails to meet the notability criteria for politicians, because she has not been elected to office. She also fails to meet the more general notability criteria for people. Chrisclear (talk) 13:52, 18 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 08:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Astromathematics[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. The only source in the article is a press release (hi, ScienceDaily, thanks for contributing nothing to the world) that doesn't contain "astromathematics", and a literature search turns up insufficient evidence that the term is actually used. XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this just seems like a dictionary definition. Praemonitus (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This does seem to be a neologism, but one coined in the 1990s by notable astronomer Edward Spiegel: [13] [14]. It doesn't seem to have caught on, though. Other Google Scholar hits are haphazard and appear disconnected. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO PianoDan (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A brief search didn't really turn up any viable redirect alternatives for me. The closest thing is probably Mathematical physics or Physical mathematics, but they're probably not close enough for WP:RPURPOSE. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The closest equivalent that actually IS a commonly used term is Celestial Mechanics. However, "astromathematics" isn't used enough for even a redirect to be warranted. PianoDan (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this is notable. Aldebarium (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable neologism. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not Neologism. Just needs more information to be added on. Has been used before in research papers and used by academics in the field. It is a form of mathematics that includes geometry, trigonometry, linear algebra etc that specially used to describe the universe. Such as space time, the example used in the article. Most neologism on here are non-serious expressions where deletion is valid, however, this specific case is about a term that has been used by academics and may be relevant in the future. It is similar to other sub fields that are emerging or are not so widespread, such as: geo-biology, Astro-biology and geo-mathematics. Example of use of term in references below^[1] RuppaZakir (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just wanted to add. There are some courses called ‘Astro-Mathematics.’ These are for physicists and mathematicians that want to learn more about the universe and take specific maths courses that relate to studies of the universe. This is a term that has been used before, and includes advanced studies of mathematics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuppaZakir (talk • contribs) 16:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That abstract is borderline incomprehensible word salad. It's ostensibly the abstract for a talk given at a conference, with no indication of peer review, and I can't find much evidence that the conference itself is reputable, or even actually happened. I fell down a rabbit hole of incomprehensible web pages trying to understand who this person actually is or their area of expertise, and it didn't lead anywhere clear. I don't think it supports notability. PianoDan (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found that abstract while I was searching for possible sources before I nominated the page for deletion. It's word salad that contributes nothing of significance. (And ResearchGate provides no peer review.) XOR'easter (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting down that rabbit hole gets even weirder - the author of the cited abstract claims, on their webpage, to have INVENTED the field of astromathematics, along with no fewer than ten OTHER branches of mathematics. Did you know he invented astro-anthrodynamics? Honestly, I think that reference actively makes the term LESS notable, by virtue of being so obviously WP:FRINGE. PianoDan (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neologism. I agree with PianoDan's assessment of the abstract and its author. (Also, technically, isn't all mathematics "used to study the universe"? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) --Kinu ^t/_c 07:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Wiktionary already recognises Astro-mathematics as a term. This definition has been there for a lot longer than the article. This article aims to expand on that definition already given by wiktionary. ^[2] RuppaZakir (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One !vote per editor, please. Also, existence on Wiktionary does not imply notability, as it is user-created and not considered a reliable source. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe it would be better to keep the article as a reference point for that definition where people can read more about the subject, more information will be added onto this article, especially ideas about linear algebra and geometry that are unique to the universe. Not all maths is used to study the universe, there is a certain part of mathematics that is very interesting for astrophysicists and mathematicians, respectively, to explore, this is called ‘Astro-mathematics’ however, yes, it is correct that this term is not widely used, however, it has been around long enough to not be considered neologism. There are some courses called Astro-mathematics in colleges and not many people know exactly what that field is, this article (with a bit more content added on) can be a reference point for people and also encourage people to approach mathematics in a different way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuppaZakir (talk • contribs) 10:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point of Wikipedia is not to be a reference point for definitions, or to encourage people to approach mathematics in a different way. Wikipedia provides encyclopedic coverage of material that has sufficient coverage in reliable, secondary sources. WP:NEO lays out what would be needed for this to clear that bar, and without those sources, it doesn't. PianoDan (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not only is it used as a reference point by many people but it is also used to discover new and obscure knowledge. Astro-Mathematics may not be used as much as a term itself, however, it is completely different from physical mathematics or mathematical physics, it is a specific study of mathematics, just like Astro-Biology (which is actually an article on Wikipedia) in fact Astro-Mathematics is much more of a clear field than Astro biology which intend to study extraterrestrial life, if that article is allowed on Wikipedia then Astro-Mathematics (a much clearer and established field) should also be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuppaZakir (talk • contribs)

Absolutely nothing has indicated that "astro-mathematics" is clearly defined or an established field. XOR'easter (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Astrobiology article has no fewer than 188 references. 188! That's a lot! They are from reliable sources and they establish the notability of the term. The astromathematics article, by contrast, has ONE reference, which does not actually use the term "astromathematics" anywhere in the article. That is the difference here. There are no references establishing the notability of the term, and that's why we're arguing for deletion. PianoDan (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are major universities that have research centers in astrobiology and some even offer degrees in astrobiology. That is not the case for astromathematics: it is just not notable as a subject area. Aldebarium (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Astro-Mathematics may not be used as much as a term itself" is precisely why this article should be deleted. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just for reference, 34,067 academic papers published on Academia.Edu alone have the term Astro-Mathematics in them. These are by established scientists in their fields. Astro-Mathematics is a term used by a lot of academics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuppaZakir (talk • contribs) 21:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. Academia.edu doesn't publish papers. It's a social-networking site with no peer-review procedures. Papers hosted there can be complete garbage. Searching for the exact phrase "astro-mathematics" returns only eleven hits there, none of which are actually useful. My guess is that you are using a free account that shows only the number of hits, not their actual content, and that you are finding papers that contain both "astro" and "mathematics" separately. Not a single source in the article now meets our basic standards for writing about scientific topics. Wikis are not reliable. Press releases are not reliable. Conference proceedings in physics are not reliable. "Astro-mathematics" is not a subject. XOR'easter (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That’s the point, Astro-mathematics is used in astrophysics and mathematics, however, it is specific to the study of the universe. If this is not favoured on Wikipedia then you can delete this article or rename it to something different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuppaZakir (talk • contribs) 17:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please stop adding comments after the ref list. Moved. (again) PianoDan (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Jaguessar[edit]

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

Not convinced passes WP:GNG, seems more like WP:PROMO. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every source in the article is primary or non-independent. A Google search on my end only turned up his website and his business's facebook page - No secondary coverage of any kind. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly self-promotion. Any kid can get a web site then say they are "world wide". This one is far from notable enough. W Nowicki (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Twice now the article had it's AFD template removed by an IP user, someone seems to want to keep it! -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG, non notable and citied references are unreliable. Nitesh003 (TALK) 07:45, 20 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 03:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Local 850[edit]

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

Public-access TV show, appears to fail WP:NTV. I can't find any significant coverage on the show, or any other indication of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable, possibly fictional TV show. My own search has only turned up this article, a mirror of this article, and an apparently unrelated YouTube channel. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: might this be a reference to Local 58? Yitz (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That thought crossed my mind too, but I don't see what the connection would be - It's not "scary," it's just a random public access program. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 19:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if confirmed as a hoax, add this to the WP:HOAXLIST as this article has existed since February 19, 2007 wizzito | say hello! 07:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:NTV, I couldn't find sources that showed notability. Suonii180 (talk) 00:57, 22 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Boy Who Could Fly (2015 film)[edit]

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

Appears to be a self-promotional article created by the film's director himself; unsourced since February 2016, and fails both GNG and NFILM. Research for sources for a WP:BEFORE check was somewhat difficult as the title is shared with various other media (including the more popular 1986 film of the same name), but either way I could find no coverage for this outside of compressive film databases such as IMDb and film festival listings, neither of which contribute towards establishing notability. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found nothing that would make this pass WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any true coverage for this either. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Only source is YouTube. Even if notable, this should be WP:TNTed due to zero suitable sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FILM, I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 01:06, 22 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 03:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foundry Row[edit]

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

Non-notable mall per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my additions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure if its more than routine local company coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of this level has been deemed sufficient in previous shopping mall AFDs; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uptown Virginia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hammond Square Mall et al. The sources I added discuss the development and growth of the center, including features unique to the Wegmans and the amount of jobs brought to the town. WP:ROUTINE has been deemed not applicable to shopping malls in the past. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer Which doesn't invalidate anything based on there being no such guideline. There is only the failed proposal Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers). I would think there would be something written up if the majority cared. I have no idea how the shopping malls became so more important than any other corporation or building. Concensus can change as well. I remember the nonsense over high schools always being notable which ended up changing. SL93 (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion above Yitz (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per additions from Ten Pound Hammer; would be interested to know if the Solo Cup factory here before was especially important in their operations. And if any part of the past structure remained, and what was there before that. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:54, 15 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. czar 20:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Dinehart[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails WP:GNG and does not appear to meet any SNGs. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not pass GNG or any other notability inclusion threshold. There is zero significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The two refs in article are (1) a primary interview in an unreliable publication and (2) a primary interview in Gamasutra; both fromm 12-14 years ago. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. GNG is not passed. A lot of cleanup has already been done for PROMO issues. Heavy evidence of COI involvement in the article, including edits from the subject, here and on related articles. -- ferret (talk)
Delete lacking indepth third party coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The person is talked about in several print sources, as a simple Google Books search indicates, but a) I can't be sure they're more than just brief mentions within the gaming context due to them being books beyond my reach at this time and b) they don't appear to be substantial enough to satisfy either the general or creative notability guidelines in that quick search. So, unfortunately this is yet another victim of an the limitations of bibliographical research in this modern age. PK650 (talk) 00:07, 17 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 merge to Meenakshi Sundareshwar. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 22:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meenakshi Sundareshwar (soundtrack)[edit]

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

A film soundtrack that does not meet the requirements of WP:NALBUM. Except for Film Companion, all of the reliable reviews cited are of the film, not the album. Other sources are interviews and routine promotional coverage. Regardless of its notability, the album may be merged and covered in the film article, Meenakshi Sundareshwar, which is just over 7 kb. Ab207 (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have managed to added few references about the album and also charts are included in order to be notable 122.178.176.51 (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, IP. Non-notable charts are generally not significant for inclusion, let alone establishing notability (WP:BADCHARTS). In any case, a stand-alone page is not justified because it can be covered in the film article itself. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I had replaced the reprecated music charts. 122.178.176.51 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The parent article itself is very short, so the soundtrack info could help expand it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Meenakshi Sundareshwar. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond Film Companion. SBKSPP (talk) 06:31, 20 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 Francis Ford Coppola#Francis Ford Coppola Presents. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Ford Coppola Presents[edit]

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

Zero citations or sources in the article to indicate notability Nightscream (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and Redirect to Francis_Ford_Coppola#Francis_Ford_Coppola_Presents It's already well covered in his main page, where it seems to belong. I don't see anything worth saving on this unsourced version. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is a AfD even required to blank and redirect? Or could one of us be be bold, implement it, and close this discussion? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Squonky nom but the idea is right. This is probably one of my first articles for the project, before I knew much about sourcing and style. Lack of sourcing is not a good reason to delete a clearly notable subject. However, as User:Bob drobbs fairly notes, any notability of this Eponymous collection of lifestyle brands created and run by Coppola falls under the shadow of the individual brands, and his own bio where it is well covered. So it is better to merge any useful information, and then blank and redirect to the bio. no need to wait for an entire AfD for that. Whoever volunteers, I suggest a nonadmin closure after doing it. Cheers. – Wikidemon (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1) I made the redirect (with page creator's support).

2) Did not see anything that needed to be merged.

3) Created a section on FFC's talk page informing people of the redirect.

4) I can't nonadmin close this as I'm involved. Anyone else want to do that? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I may close per IAR or WP:whatareyougoingtodoaboutit? Otherwise, probably low traffic at this point so it will just get closed without further fuss in due course. Thanks! - Wikidemon (talk) 09:44, 20 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. Deletion is not the procedure for a page rename. Please see Wikipedia:Moving a page. Without a valid reason this is a candidate for speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT (non-admin closure) Venkat TL (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Habibganj railway station[edit]

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

The name of the Station has been changed from 'Habibganj Railway Station' to 'Rani Kamalapati Railway Station'. The code of the station has changed from 'HBJ' to 'RKMP' as per the Indian railways website at IRCTC. Wowcontributer (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Habibganj railway station[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intellinetics[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Sources are a company announcement, a couple-paragraph mention of controversy in an NYT article, and an SEC form. BEFORE didn't turn up any RS coverage. I don't believe the controversy in the NYT article is sufficient to justify its own article; it's listed as one of several companies that have used COVID bailout money in inappropriate ways. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No depth of coverage. tedder (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No notability here. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NCORP, GNG. Mention in NYT article is not enough. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:35, 20 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 03:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nehru and Bose[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK – at least I have not managed to find any other substantial review than the one already in the article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are reviews in India Today, DNA India, Verve, and Free Press Journal in addition to the The Hindu review referenced in the article. Rusalkii (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of these sources to the article. Rusalkii (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The India Today, DNA India and FPJ pieces are not really book reviews – they are commentaries on the relationship between the two politicians; the book only serves as a backdrop. The Verve piece is indeed a review, although it's so brief that all in all I'm not sure the WP:NBOOK threshold has been crossed. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument that the provided links aren't book reviews feels a bit tenuous, the articles are titled "Book review" and are discussing the contents of the book. These are sufficient to meet WP:GNG IMO. NemesisAT (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The India Today contains precisely one short sentence about the book (that's perhaps why it came up in someone's Google search) and is not even titled "review". Similarly, the anonymous FPJ piece (do you often see anonymous book reviews?) contains two sentences about the book itself while 98% of the text are musings about the two politicians. Really, they are weak signs of notability. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the India Today article is "Shahid Amin reviews Nehru and Bose: Parallel Lives" and the title of the book is "Nehru and Bose: Parallel Lives". NemesisAT (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...and even then, the author fails to actually review the book. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the five sources that are referred to above are clearly book reviews. Passes both WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just want to say that WP:NBOOK doesn't particularly say reviews (while that is something best to have). If there are coverages around the book which are talking about it in other contexts, that will still count. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to author's article. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:14, 19 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. Materialscientist deleted page on 15 November. (non-admin closure) Worldbruce (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mizanur Rahman Siyam[edit]

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

Subject did not win any significant awards. The first reference is an interview. The rest is about his plays. Any reference that proves notability isn't found on Google. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 14:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 14:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 14:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 14:31, 15 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 Bal Gangadhar Tilak. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swaraj is my birth right and I shall have it![edit]

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

A very short article, created yesterday, about an English translation of a Marathi quote attributed to Bal Gangadhar Tilak, an early 20th-century Indian independence activist. The quote does not seem to have an independent notability from the person who reportedly used it (especially that he used it in a different language) and anyway it is mentioned in Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Given that quotes generally belong at Wikiquotes – delete from Wikipedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikiquotes. Redirect per 192.76.8.91 – The Grid (talk) ~~15:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)~~ 21:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per below~~Transwiki~~. This probably does not meet our inclusion standards, but it likely does at WikiQuotes, as noted above. ~~If not transwiki, then delete it~~. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC) (updated: 02:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to Bal Gangadhar Tilak as a well known quote by the subject. Wikiquote allready have this listed under q:Bal Gangadhar Tilak, so I don't think this is worth transwikiing (also it's in completely the wrong format for a wikiquote page). 192.76.8.91 (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for the reasons laid out by 192.76.8.91 ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 19:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bal Gangadhar Tilak, not notable enough for its own article and info is already in target article. Suonii180 (talk) 01:11, 22 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) 08:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Leela[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Since this, nothing has changed. The Subject of the article is an actor who fails to meet any criterion from WP:NACTOR as they have not featured or played significant lead roles in multiple movies as required by NACTOR neither have they won any prestigious awards. Furthermore the sources used here are TOI which is now deprecated and Indian express which was an interview thus not independent of her and (thus not considered reliable in this context) & mere announcements. A before search doesn’t show anything cogent. This is also a WP:GNG fail. Celestina007 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, not having lead role. Behind the moors (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with draft article Another draft on the subject is already there: Draft:Sree Leela. Please merge the two and let it incubate in the draft space. Thanks Rickyurs (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could have merged but they are identical. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Nominator. Fails WP:NACTOR. DMySon (talk) 17:19, 20 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. Deleting per failure to meet WP:GNG and WP:NBIO.

Thanks for your contributions and assuming good faith with this decision. If you have a problem with it, please bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Milligan (musician)[edit]

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

BLP does not meet WP:NBIO- coverage is largely WP:PASSING mentions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Before search yields just passing mentions and interviews. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BASIC musicians and producers are known for their work, and this one works. Lightburst (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that these establish notability for the individual- Discogs is not WP:RS and the newspaper article mention is in the context of The Joy Thieves. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete [15] seems like a decent source, but it's local and about 50% of the article is quotes, so overall it probably doesn't count towards notability. All other sources contain only passing mentions. Mlb96 (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Criteria for any biography: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" - Artist is responsible for the creation of one of the largest and most important groups in modern Industrial music. Criteria for Creative Professionals: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" - Artist is an important figure in modern Industrial music and the fact that many are notable (have Wikipedia bios) and choose to be a part of the collective is a testament to the level of importance the artist has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiGrey (talk • contribs) 14:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @WikiGrey: Could you provide a reliable source to support your statement that The Joy Thieves are "one of the most important groups in modern Industrial music"? They aren't even mentioned in the industrial music article. Also, you have claimed that Mr. Milligan is regarded as an important figure in industrial music. Could you provide any reliable sources supporting this? Mlb96 (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Mlb96: I do not have an article that directly says this. I can, however, say that wiki page for The Joy Thieves clearly backs up with references the fact that Mr. Milligan is the founder of the collective and lists, with references, the members that have chosen to work with him. Many of which are notable themselves in the Industrial music scene as well as other music genres. That combined with his list of artists he has worked with, many notable themselves, along with the discography noted above, on Discogs, supports his involvement and importance in the genre and scene. WikiGrey) 22:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I would also question the notability of Joy Thieves; the sources used are weak and I couldn't turn up anything to replace them. JSFarman (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability via WP:ANYBIO is not enough to warrant a standalone article. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:36, 24 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 Railpower Technologies#Green Goat Hybrid switchers. Sandstein 08:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Railpower GGS2000D[edit]

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

Article has no sources, and no sources online available aside from this webpage, as it is a pretty obscure locomotive model. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 20:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Railpower Technologies#Green Goat Hybrid switchers, where it is very briefly mentioned. There's not any sourced material to be merged, but the locomotive is at least a plausible search term. And for that matter, redirect Railpower GG10B too, which is even worse than this article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Railpower GG20B. All the Railmotor hybrid locomotives should live in the same article and the GG20B in the main production model with its infobox is the main variant and tech is relevant. (I'm not sure I would have added that source one hour ago had I realised Trainsandotherthings had posted here 8 hours ago but my focus was get source(s) about Railpower GGS2000D first and ask questions later ... And I was prepping a book source but as last moment noticed Lulu it wouldn't stick). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as multiple redirect/merge targets have been proposed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Railpower Technologies. Not notable enough for its own article but could still be searched for. Against merging as apart from the first sentence, it's all unsourced and so the information shouldn't be merged unless reliable sources can be found. Suonii180 (talk) 01:19, 22 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🌀 23:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambarish Bhattacharya[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page has been created by a sockuser. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, subject is covered regularly in the Times of India, and with less enthusiasm in the Dhaka Tribune. He has a sentence in this review, but one which indicates he's a well-known actor. Further sources likely exist in Bengali. Rusalkii (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed previous AfD, if Times of India is not considered reliable or independent then I amend my vote to weak keep. Rusalkii (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the person clearly passes WP:NACTOR, with multiple reviews and mentions of works in WP:RS like The Telegraph (India), Hindustan Times (Bengali edition), Anandabazar Patrika, The Indian Express (Bengali edition), Sangbad Pratidin, Dhaka Tribune and Firstpost apart from The Times of India. The actor has performed in notable films and a popular face of Bengali TV soaps followed by Bengali speaking audiences from both India and Bangladesh. It looks the nominator has failed in terms of WP:BEFORE. Also, the article was created much earlier before the creator was banned for socking thus deletion argument fails. 42.105.0.134 (talk) 19:25, 19 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) 08:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Macau[edit]

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

While there are certainly some Hindus living in Macau, they do not make up a significant part of the population, <0.1% according to Pew. More importantly, I cannot locate any significant coverage on the topic of Hinduism in Macau, meaning it fails WP:GNG. If any relevant information can be sourced at all, it should instead be added to Religion in Macau, where Hinduism currently isn't mentioned, and/or to Hinduism in China, where Macau currently isn't mentioned. Lennart97 (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The proportion of the population isn't really relevant, it's just that the article has no content. Hinduism in Macau -> "There are some Hindus in Macau"{citation needed}. It can always be recreated if people find sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No content and no source. Venkat TL (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's no content to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 01:22, 22 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 withdrew) (non-admin closure) Coolperson177 (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor Butnariu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I may be wrong here as I know nothing about rugby, but it seems the notability criteria are not met here - WP:NRU. No sigcov found to make it through either. Less Unless (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This player passes WP:NRU criteria having played for Romania's national team, the Oaks (which is a "High Performance Union"), making his international debut during the 3rd week of 2021 Autumn Nations Series in a test match against Los Teros on 7 November 2021.^[1]^[2]^[3] (Gabinho^>:) 18:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - his cap seems to be verified by multiple sources Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Player has now played international rugby, passing him for WP:NRU, when the article was previously deleted he failed WP:NRU, now passes. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you everyone for participation, I withdraw the nom. Best, Less Unless (talk) 18:52, 16 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 03:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Science Park[edit]

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

There is nothing to indicate that the subject is notable. It's a non-notable company that is framed as "a business community". If there is anything worth keeping, it can be merged with Dubai Holding, which is the company that owns this subsidiary. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Neighbourhoods are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:GEOFEAT 2 "...commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.", with that said, here is a source assess table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Snood1205
"How a focus on science can help the economy grow". The National. Retrieved 2021-11-15.		?	✘ No
"TECOM creates new Dubai Science Park after merger - Technology". ArabianBusiness.com. 2015-10-19. Retrieved 2021-11-15.		~	✘ No
"Startups, SMEs account for 40 per cent of Dubai Science Park's business partners". www.mediaoffice.ae. 8 September 2021. Retrieved 2021-11-15.			✘ No
"'Stuck' Offers a Unique View of the Difficulties Faced by People With Paralysis". Branding in Asia Magazine. 2021-08-23. Retrieved 2021-11-15.	?	?	? Unknown
"Healthcare Drive Sees Dubai Science Park Attract Leading Global Companies in 2020". www.mediaoffice.ae. 25 January 2021. Retrieved 2021-11-15.			✘ No
"Dubai Science Park Products & Services". Dsp.ae. Retrieved 2017-03-23.			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

I will note, this seems to appear in a number of books as well, but the books are either: trivially mentioning the park or are promotional. I could not find any WP:RS about it, and therefore per WP:GEOFEAT this currently fails. Having said that, with the sheer number of mentions it is odd there are are not any WP:RS and hence I think it is possible this article could be kept if there are reliable sources about the science park. With the number of companies there, and number of hits on google for it there should be something. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 14:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I have found a couple of independent sources.^[4]^[5]

References

^ en.espn.co.uk (7 November 2021). "Romania Rugby Union debuts".
^ ESPN (7 November 2021). "ROMANIA TOUR / URUGUAY TOUR - VR, 7 November 2021, 15:00 local, 14:00 GMT".
^ www.sportulsatmarean.ro (7 November 2021). "Rugby - Victorie pentru România în fața Uruguay-ului".
^ "Top Ministry official visits Dubai Science Park". Khaleej Times. 27 June 2021. Retrieved 16 November 2021.
^ Cook, Terry; Riches, Clive; Taylor, Richard (2021). Cambridge International AS & A Level Complete Economics: Student Book (Second Edition). OUP Oxford. p. 170. ISBN 9781382029933.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to the additional sources presented by SailingInABathTub NemesisAT (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the independent sources show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:45, 22 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) 08:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kalaniot Books[edit]

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

Non notable company. References in independent sources are not in depth. Fails WP:NCORP. (t · c) buidhe 08:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 08:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 08:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 08:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no indication of importance. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough significant coverage from secondary reliable sources. Isabelle ^🔔 14:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of independent and reliable references.Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:35, 19 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. Hog Farm _Talk 21:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GRI Tires[edit]

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

no evidence for notability under WP:NCoRP, and promotional DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:12, 15 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. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dance of the Dwarfs[edit]

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

Leonard Maltin’s Movie Guide is considered “coverage insufficient to fully establish notability” per WP:NFSOURCES. Found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. IMDb shows 10 'external reviews' but most are blog/youtube reviews. There is a TV Guide 'review' but there is no linked article and TV Guide gives star reviews with a short blurb to every film that is aired. The Chicago Reader link is dead without an archive so it's impossible to tell if its in-depth. The film does have some notable actors, but this film is not a 'major part' of their careers as required by NFILM to be a basis of the film's notable. Note that this was originally called "Jungle Heat"... but the title was apparently usurped by a 1985 film (no, not Jungle Heat, either). That makes it somewhat difficult to parse but I am confident in my 'delete' vote. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this two-line Chicago Reader item? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that appears to be the one. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per book sources. Books are good reliable sources for old films.--Filmomusico (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note - there are not book sources, just a book source. The reviewer republishes his old reviews - that does not create an additional basis for notability. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Books cited in total is significant coverage. Found TV Guide [16] coverage and a 1 and a 1/2 star rating at Allmovie [17]. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 'm finding quite a few reviews for the book. I think that if all else fails, this could be a good landing page for both the book and film - one page for both. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the article somewhat. Geschichte (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The tv movie was plastered all over HBO in 1983. Now, in the newspapers' tv guides the film was shown interchangeably with a 2 star or 2 1/2 star review. I haven't been able to pinpoint where such reviews were originally given. Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reminder that WP:NEXIST is a (very important) guideline when considering AfD — "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article" Yitz (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !voters have brought up sources, though delete!voters haven't really seemed to have responded to the new sources brought up. Commenting on the new sources would be helpful in allowing a consensus to be ascertained.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect (the film and the book) to Geoffrey Household. The sourcing on the film is weak (Maltin and the TV Guide mini review) and the book itself probably doesn't warrant a standalone article either (only a Kirkus Review (long) paragraph and the newspaper reviews), but the info is worth saving. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Deborah Raffin. The China story is referenced and seems like a relevant part of film history, also hinting on possible WP:NEXIST in Chinese (maybe not, but also, maybe). My opinion is keep until another participant in this discussion can refute this. Geschichte (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone promoting a movie in China does not make it a notable piece of film history. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Also, I'm not saying to merge it to history of film, but it is undoubtedly relevant in the right context. Geschichte (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's as historically significant as The Day after the Birth of a Nation: The Sequel. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep, as the book and reviews are enough for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:44, 22 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 09:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Degasoline Motorsport[edit]

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

I have no idea whether or not they are notable--it's not my field. But it's been in Draft for a while, and the only place to determine this is AfD. Ck article history for coi concerns. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this was moved from draft space to main space. It wasn't accepted through the normal AfC process (and it was never going to) and the nominator appears to have moved the article purely to bring it to AfD. It could have been deleted under G13 since the last edit was on 10 May if the nominator had waited two more days. That being said, it should certainly be deleted: neither the team, its riders, or the series it competes in are notable and none have received the sort of coverage that might warrant an encyclopaedic article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC), amended 13:18, 16 November 2021‎[reply]

Confused delete per 5225C. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:56, 22 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. Clear consensus that notability is met, along with an equally confirm consensus that the article needs major work Nosebagbear (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Haas (political scientist)[edit]

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

This person does not appear to meet any criteria for notability. and for a WP:BLP includes a lot of unsourced or poorly source material. JeffUK (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Terrible article, notable person--his book on Bush is cited in lots of places, and he, as a political scientist, is widely cited in academic articles, according to JSTOR. This article just needs an objective editor. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also the related discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political Film Society, on an organization founded by Haas. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1084#Users Isabelle Helm and Mikehaas and the article history. If kept, this article may need to be protected against autobiographical and COI edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Terrible article, notable person. I agree with Drmies above. Otto (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim heavily as has just happened. Meets WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1 by citations to his books and review articles. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:27, 16 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) 13:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tanubai Birje[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, especially WP:HISTRS. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was started yesterday. Any chance it will be expanded? Looking online there seems to be an award named after her, but I can't find any sources about that aside from the fact that someone won it. No information on Birje's biography or career available online. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:42, 19 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) 06:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Effectively unsourced. scope_creep^Talk 15:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Satyashodhak Samaj per WP:ATD. The only source is from a Wordpress document and I have found multiple copies at various places so I can't determine which is the actual original. Searches for the Marathi spelling produce no other RS, only social media and WP:UGC that do not pass WP:RS. There is a corresponding article at the Marathi wiki that is unsourced but its presence suggests that it is a plausible search term. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tanubai Birje was among the first educated women in modern India when women were still not allowed to learn. She was a student of Savitribai Phule, who started first school for girls in India. Contemporary references about her are either not well documented due to general negligence about women's education or them not being available in digitized formats. I have added a couple of references to the article; one of them is a book published about her "Deenbandhu and Tanubai Birje." Though the article can sure be better sourced, I affirm that the subject is certainly notable. I suggest the deletion tag be removed and "More citation needed" template be added. GD (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shivashree and WP:NEXIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist to hopefully establish a consensus thru more views.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'll also buy WP:NEXIST. She was a groundbreaking woman who had at least one book written about her. More sources almost certainly exist. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not read Marathi, but a search on her name in that language gives a, number of articles, which to the limit of machine translation seem acceptable. The last of these also cites a number of offline sources. Rusalkii (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Historical person. Editor of a major newspaper. She passes the notability criteria for Journalist. Venkat TL (talk) 13:48, 17 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 and move. Geschichte (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lock puzzle[edit]

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

The article does not include any useful information, does not cite any sources, and is not even a notable topic. It was of many pages nominated for deletion along with Interlocking puzzle in 2005, and they were all kept because they apparently would be improved. However, they were not. Philosophy2 (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Lock puzzles have a long history." Ah, wonderful. I feel very informed. -- asilvering (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article as presented is not very thorough, but they do in fact seem to have a long history with some academic coverage. This article goes into some depth and mentions this book, which is entirely about (a narrow subfield of) the subject. Rusalkii (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to "puzzle lock": Rusalkii's excellent research shows that biggest issue might be that they're known as "puzzle locks" not "lock puzzles". When you reverse the words lots of references show up.[18] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's actually a fascinating topic that's almost certainly notable. I just added the first source. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The sources linked above suggest this may be notable, but the article doesn't show this. I think this could be kept but if no improvement is needed, it needs a ((notability)) template. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Puzzle lock per Bob drobbs. Seems to be a notable topic, especially with ancient Chinese puzzle locks having multiple scholarly sources (e.g. [19] [20] [21]). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per above. This is a good example of something that people tend to forget about WP:GNG, where what matters is the existence of sources, in the article, or otherwise. OcelotCreeper2 (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep and trout nom only reason given for deletion that is valid is "not even a notable topic", which I suspect isn't the Wikipedia definition of "notable". Nom appears to have made no attempt to fix or follow WP:BEFORE. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has been improved since this discussion began, and can definitely be improved from a stub. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 02:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep short article but notable topic. It could be expanded in the future. Mann Mann (talk) 14:50, 21 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. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emiru[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. _signed,Iflaq ^(talk) 13:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no doubt there is a lot of chatter about this individual online. Where I stumble on the way to WP:GNG is that all the "news-type" links don't seem to be reliable sources to me. I could be wrong... "Dexerto" is used as a reference in many articles on Wikipedia (see this search), but I think that's something that needs addressed on a bulk scale. The site just looks like a repeater of twitter and other self-generated PR and does not seem to have any journalistic or academic oversight. So that puts up stumbling blocks for WP:RS and WP:BLP.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retention - After reading your eligibility criteria, the article is obviously eligible. The notoriety is evident when you consider she works as a content creator for Cloud9, which is the world's second-most valuable esports organization. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neburner (talk • contribs) 20:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Which "eligibility critera" are you referencing? Also, "notoriety" is not the threshhold for notability. Having a job at a company does not qualify for an article because Wikipedia is not a directory.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://cloud9.gg/players/emily-schunk/

Delete per nom. Solid sources are utterly lacking. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly meets WP:Notability and should be expanded with more reliable sources. Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it meets WP:Notability and her rising fame means this article will have to be made sooner or later, but this should definitely be expanded with more reliable sources in the future. Weplist (talk) 2:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'll bite: how specifically does the subject "clearly" meet notability? What sources? just saying it doesn't make it so.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, my thinking was just based on her number of viewers -- if you have 9.4 million total views then I would assume some people are talking about you online in reliable secondary sources. But, reading your reasoning for delete, I can see that point of view as well. Don't these these 16 pages of news articles contain some reliable material? Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a fair quesiton, and I have to say my answer is "I don't know." I don't know if Dexerto or those other websites meet the standard of reliable sources or not. So I just pull back to WP:BLP and the policy that for living persons: "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." I don't think we've met that standard. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/Merge. Subject does get dedicated coverage in reliable sources such as Dot Esports [22] and SVG [23][24]. Coupled with briefer mentions of her work in those sources [25][26] and others such as Inven Global [27], Daily Utah Chronicle [28], Rift Herald [29]. Dexerto is a bit of a lower quality source in terms of content covered, but it does have editors, issues corrections, and largely directly links to the relevant primary sources (e.g. Twitch clips, tweets) it is covering. It's probably okay for uncontroversial topics, and it has a lot of coverage of Emiru as well. Coverage is not especially deep but it's borderline notable, and would certainly justify merging to the org she's a part of, Cloud9. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, googling phrases like 'twitch emiru' vs 'twitch Asmongold' (no quotes on either searches) on the google news tab has 426 vs 7320 results. The most reported female streamer is possibly Amouranth, who strangely has no article while another female streamer, 'twitch lilypichu' results in 885 results but has a Wikipedia article. A key metric for notability is reporting by more mainstream media, such as Washington Post, NYT, etc. who mention specifically in their various reports much larger streamers. The most direct comparison in an approximate influence size manner can be made with Neekolul, but Neekolul had a viral moment which got into mainstream media while emiru has had no such thing Xenmorpha (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User Iflaq moved misplaced comment downwards

Move to draft. Patar knight makes a good point regarding the subject's dedicated coverage in reliable sources. Given her recent association with Mizkif and One True King, more sources will probably come out, but until then it should sit in the draftspace. Troutfarm27 ^(Talk) 05:04, 20 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 (NAC) Page has been speedied and salted. Nixinova T C 05:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup.pictures[edit]

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

WP:A7, non-notable website. Article has been speedily deleted twice at different titles and draftification has been undone by the creator. All titles: Cleanup.Pictures, cleanup.pictures, Cleanup Pictures, Draft:cleanup.pictures. Nixinova T C 04:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: A7. ––FormalDude ^talk 04:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 and SALT I have tagged it for A7 like the three other times this has been deleted. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suspected sockpuppet User:A Sal Johnson is now retaliating against me for this nomination. Special:Diff/1055317023. Nixinova T C 04:49, 15 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 merge to 1990 AFC U-16 Championship. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1990 AFC U-16 Championship qualification[edit]

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

This article does not credibly assert notability as a WP:SPORTSEVENT; it's a U-16 qualifier series. As a WP:EVENT, it similarly appears to fail to have generated WP:SUSTAINED coverage and a WP:LASTING impact. Therefore, I propose that this article be redirected to 1990 AFC U-16 Championship~~deleted~~ (updated 06:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, and we don't need an article on qualifying for an U-16 competition. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --dashiellx (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this appears to be part of a series, including the poorly sourced 1988 AFC U-16 Championship qualification, the somewhat better sourced 1985 AFC U-16 Championship qualification and the well sourced 2020 AFC U-16 Championship qualification. It will be interesting to see how the consensus here may apply to some of its counterparts Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 1990 AFC U-16 Championship per source. Sources are not as per the criteria. Behind the moors (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Starting from 2008 edition, the qualifications of the AFC U-16 Championship are well-documented, with more details for recent tournaments. Why is 2020 AFC U-16 Championship qualification notable, while the 1990 edition is not? If this were true, then at which edition did the qualification start to become notable? They are the same tournament, and if the 1990 edition (or older) were to be deleted, then all qualifications of this tournament should be deleted as well. In my opinion, each edition of the AFC U-16 Championship is notable. We should document the entire tournament, and the qualification is an inseparable part of it. (Just like there is an article 2021–22 FA Cup qualifying rounds.) I am the author of this article. I planned to complete the qualifications of continental youth tournaments, but unfortunately lack the necessary info for some. Sofeshue (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- To the above, I'd respond that just because more modern versions of this event are well-documented doesn't mean that older versions are as well-documented or carry the same historical weight. If you'd propose an alternative to deletion (such as a redirect to a not-yet-existing list article of AFC U-16 Championship qualifications) that would preserve the usability of some of the content, then I would like to see the argument be made. But, there's no basis in the guidelines that you're describing that would actually suggest that this article be kept in its own right, unless we were simply to presume the tournament so significant that it would have to be notable. I see no reason to do that a priori, though you're welcome to start a discussion on the talk page of WP:NSOCCER if you'd like to see what the community would think about expanding the guideline in this manner. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Would we consider merging it with 1990 AFC U-16 Championship, rather than simply deleting it? It is poorly-sourced, but I did do some research and editting work. If we keep it somewhere, maybe someone someday could provide more detailed information. Sofeshue (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1990 AFC U-16 Championship as WP:ATD per Sofeshue. Jumpytoo Talk 19:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1990 AFC U-16 Championship. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 06:05, 20 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) 08:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Ngumah[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Nikolaih^☎️📖 04:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO, WP:NPOL, WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Non-notable award. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non notable business man who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. Celestina007 (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails just about every policy that I can think of. Edwardx (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — but this makes no claim that he had preexisting notability for other reasons independently of an unsuccessful candidacy, and doesn't even approach the depth or volume of coverage it would take to make his candidacy more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 18 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) 08:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of IMSA GT Championship marques[edit]

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

I do not believe that this meets Wikipedia's criteria for standalone lists. The information is cited to a single primary source, which doesn't satisfy WP:NLIST on its own. It also does not appear to be the case that this would be covered in any secondary sources that I can find on the internet. As a result, I am nominating this for deletion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While a list of cars from IMSA GT (especially GTP cars) could be notable, I don't see any reliable sources discussing makes/marques alone. Few, if any, of the articles listed on this article would even discuss their participation in IMSA GT racing whatsoever. A7V2 (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A7V2. Non-notable list and without any context, could be seen as advertising of the makes/marques. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:51, 20 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. This does not prevent someone adding a redirect. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William E. Hill[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Tuskegee Airman killed in a training accident who never deployed overseas. Source analysis follows

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://riahof.org/field-of-accomplishment/civilian-aviation/minorities/2-lt-william-e-hill	As Hill was a Rhode Island native the Rhode Island Aviation Hall of Fame cannot be considered independent			✘ No
https://cafriseabove.org/2nd-lt-william-e-hill/		CAF is a user contributor website of questionable reliability		✘ No
https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ213/PLAW-109publ213.pdf			about the Congressional Gold Medal awarded to the Tuskegee Airmen in 2006, not about him	✘ No
The Tuskegee Airmen: An Illustrated History, 1939-1949			name in a list of airmen on p 218	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Mztourist (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, albeit weakly. I don't think it's reasonable that the Rhode Island Aviation Hall of Fame is non-independent of Hill because he lived in Rhode Island. There seems to be editorial independence between Hill himself and that board; I think to suggest otherwise would be silly. After a basic search, I found some coverage of Hill from Michigan Tech, but it's not significant enough to contribute in and of itself towards WP:NBASIC. In my view, we have one significant, in-depth reliable source. If we can come up with another, I'd be glad to change my !vote to keep. For now, however, I think the correct answer would to delete it based on the evidence I can find. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although one might argue, as per nomination, that subject fails WP:BASIC, I find that the subject complies with WP:ANYBIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrts (talk • contribs) 11:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what part of ANYBIO do you believe he satisfies? Mztourist (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on its own it does not make him notable, but I disagree with "As Hill was a Rhode Island native the Rhode Island Aviation Hall of Fame cannot be considered independent" from the source assesment. Is a national Hall of Fame not independent because it gives awards to prominent figures from that country? Rusalkii (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to find this article, and he's discussed briefly here, mostly in the context of his plane. The search results are generally shadowed by William L. Hill, also a Tuskegee Airman, who fought through the entire war. Rusalkii (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CAF is covered in the source assessment table already, it is not reliable. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd personally be fine with CAF if I can find any information on editorial oversight; it's certainly volunteer-run, but it isn't an open wiki. If it's just individuals making blog posts, then I'm inclined to not count it. And, since I really have no way of ruling that out, my analysis above discounted it. For what it's worth, the website is run by this group, so if we can find WP:USEBYOTHERS more broadly, then I might see it as being a reliable source. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no editorial oversight. At numerous recent AFDs CAF has been deemed to be unreliable. Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into a list of Tuskegee Airmen. Not enough on its own to qualify for anything. And given the errors I've found in their articles, if CAF has editorial oversight they need to fire those individuals and get new ones. Intothat darkness 20:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tuskegee Airmen. Being the "first black pilot from Rhode Island in the Army Air Forces" may be enough for the Rhode Island Aviation Hall of Fame, but it's not enough for WP:BIO. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tuskegee Airmen. Seems to be the case where most of the coverage is about the airmen as a whole rather than the individual in the article. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic lacks sufficient coverage to meet BASIC and sufficient distinction to meet ANYBIO. Avilich (talk) 23:06, 23 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 13:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daimalu[edit]

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

This page was almost entirely made from copypasted plagiarized material from two unreliable sources. I tried looking for some more reliable sources, but I'm not getting anything much from Google, gscholar, or my library. It doesn't look like this topic passes WP:N or WP:RS, at least in English; no other English-language articles link here; there's only one other-language WP article on him, which is a stub. He's evidently notable enough for a statue, though? asilvering (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:27, 15 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. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Klocks Crossing, Ohio[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 03:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A person was listed as from Klock's Crossing in 1943. Here it is mentioned as a place where an accident took place. Here some road workers got in trouble working there on the roads in 1939. Might be a whistle stop there also but the first article gives me an idea that we should keep. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can a whistle stop even be notable in the first place? Unless some remarkable event happened there or there's a noteworthy history behind it, I don't think a whistle stop is notable. WADDLES 🍁 🎃 03:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication this is notable. Another flag stop. MB 04:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of legal recognition, as required by WP:GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from the clippings mentioned above (which, apart from the first, mostly don't mean much) there are a few sources here. People were from there in 1905, 1925, and 1951. In 1941, someone died who was born there and lived there for most of her life. It may not have been much of a populated place, but it certainly seems to have been one. WP:GEOLAND does not require areas to be legally established municipality: "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG". jp×g 03:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To pass GNG the coverage must be significant coverage of the place in multiple sources. Not simply bare mentions of people came from there visiting each other, in what were the early-mid 20th century version of Facebook. GEOLAND #1 only gives a presumption of notability where the location is legally recognised, and there's no evidence of that here. FOARP (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: I suppose that, for me, what matters here is that the existence of the place can be demonstrated, and we can at least say a little bit about things that have happened there. Admittedly, the article is not currently replete with historical documentation, but what exists is a start. As for Facebook, well, debates over whether territories should be granted statehood are arguably the 18th-, 19th-, 20th-, and 21st-century equivalents of Wikipedia deletion discussions, but we have articles about that anyway (and United States presidential debates are often quite reminiscent of WP:AN/I threads, but alas). At any rate, I am not entirely dug into my position on this, since the sourcing I was able to come up with was fairly meh -- I could be convinced to change my mind. Could you elaborate a little more on what you've said here? jp×g 12:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -JPxG- Thanks for responding above. Specifically addressing the sourcing, to pass WP:GNG we need multiple instances of significant coverage. Significant coverage "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" (my emphasis). In this case, what actual details about Clocks Crossing can you actually extract from those newspaper articles? None that I can see. They don't tell you anything about Klocks Crossing. They do not address Klocks Crossing directly. They are just trivial mentions of the place in the society pages, which is where people told their neighbours what they had been up to - the kind of thing we use Facebook for now.

Why is this important? It's because without significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, you cannot actually write an encyclopaedia article about the subject. And that's what Wikipedia is: an encyclopaedia. It does not suddenly become something else when we are writing about populated places. FOARP (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there are just enough sources to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing located since nomination.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:16, 23 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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Rogan Questions Everything[edit]

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

Been without any secondary reliable sources for 8 years; just episode guides. No indication of any real notability, fails WP:GNG.

Content should be placed into Joe Rogan, if appropriate. Leave a redirect from this article's title (Joe Rogan Questions Everything) to Joe Rogan because this article is mentioned in a few in-article lists; possibly also from redirects Joe Rogan questions everything (TV series) and Joe Rogan questions everything. Platonk (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Okay, if it's had no secondary sources for eight years, that's a great reason to go find some. I took a few minutes and found SIGCOV here, as well as a few good sources here, here and here. It's also mentioned here and here. A confirmation of its premiere date is here and here. Anything fails GNG if you don't look for sources... jp×g 01:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated these sources into the article (although, certainly, it could do with some further copyediting. jp×g 01:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article has been improved with the addition of content sourced to significant coverage in reliable sources such as newspapers so that WP:GNG is passed and therefore deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JPxG's improvements. Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 17 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) 13:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hillman (poet)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. Being published in "Best Australian Poems" is not a significant award. Gnews comes up with a namesake actor. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- By adding few notable sources of his work, the article can be kept in main space. I saw he's published a few books. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamJayYas (talk • contribs) 10:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a reference. I think there's just enough here to justify keeping this article, and due to the age of some of his works its possible there was additional coverage at the time which is now offline. NemesisAT (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author is referenced in a collective authorship edition about Australian literature, that is a sign of recognition by the peers , therefore, the comment or argument above: "Fails WP:CREATIVE", seems not applicable here. Louie (talk) 04:24, 15 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. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endangered Species (2003 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing else was found on a WP:BEFORE search. The Film Creator (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Review found at Dread Central (a WP:RS) [30] DonaldD23 talk to me 20:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Donaldd23 Good. All you need to find is one more significant and reliable source or review and I will withdraw the nomination. The Film Creator (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you count Actionfreunde as reliable, for instance? It's listed among 12 external reviews on IMDB. Google finds the same 12 reviews. The film might have caught somewhat on in Germany, under the name Gejagt (Hunted). Cf. this tv writeup and other sources, is the real release year 2002 and not 2003? Geschichte (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure if those reviews come from reliable sources, but if consensus disagrees I’d be glad to withdraw the nomination. The Film Creator (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I think that at least some of the 12 reviews are non-RS, but a couple of them might be. Geschichte (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing. Very weak review sources and nothing else. None of them seem particularly reliable - in fact, all of them look like any producer could pay the website to have a review put up. Fred Zepelin (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dread Central is a reliable source and reviews in reliable sources are the main means of achieving notability for films, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reviews in Dread Central, Actionfreunde and I also remember that Somethingawful has been used for review notability before. Geschichte (talk) 13:31, 22 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 00:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spain–Tajikistan relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article even admits relations are almost non existent: "Bilateral relations are poorly developed" and "No direct investment or portfolio flows have been recorded in either direction since the independence of Tajikistan". No embassies, no agreements, no state visits too. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also find absolutely nothing to indicate this relationship is notable. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you look at the original editor's Talk page you can find many more examples of "Spain-X relations" articles, all AfD'd. -- asilvering (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, not all: this one appears to be the sole survivor. asilvering (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:30, 15 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lookout, Wyoming[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page fails WP:GEOLAND as it is both not (and never has been) a legally-recognised (e.g., through incorporation) populated place, nor is it a WP:GNG pass as all the references are passing mentions that fail to give WP:SIGCOV or are not even talking about the subject (e.g., the wind farm reference). In reality this was only ever just a rail stop. The previous AFD was wrongly decided under the misunderstanding that GNIS is a reliable source regarding whether Lookout station itself (as opposed to its surrounding district) was ever populated (it is not), that post-offices are a form of legally recognition (they are not - a post office may be located anywhere, and is often just an adjunct to a store, or in this case a rail stop), and that Wikipedia is a gazetteer per se (it is not - it simply has features of a gazetteer). FOARP (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The last AfD was correctly decided. Lookout was listed in the 1940 census and had a post office. That counts as legal recognition for GEOLAND. There was no misunderstanding about GNIS -- Lookout is/was a small village but had an actual population. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that post offices may be anywhere (including on board trains), were and are often just adjuncts to stores/stations that weren't necessarily located in communities, why do you believe that a post-office confers legal recognition on a locality? Similarly, given that the census data is for the surrounding district, and not for the station per se, how does the census data demonstrate that anyone lived there? And why is census data, which can be for any kind of community, recognised or not, used as evidence of legal recognition? FOARP (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While a post office is not by itself proof that it is a community, combined with census figures it shows that this truly was a small community. According to this blog, it was a small village of 30 people, which is borne by the Census data. And the fact that is from the surrounding district is not important, since we are not merely counting the data from the Lookout station house right? If you need more proof, here are some residents of Lookout: [31] [32] [33] [34]. While there are plenty of GNIS errors out there, this is not one of them. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But where's the evidence of legal recognition here? We've got a blog (not RS) with a photo of an abandoned gas-station, a newspaper story of a rail employee who appears to have been based at the station being robbed, a report of someone who died intestate who was last reported living there, another news story of a rail employee getting married, and another report of someone dying who used to live there. All of this is consistent with a rail stop where some employees lived (possibly just the station master and their family?), and not a community as such, still less a legally-recognised one. None of these actually describes what Lookout was beyond saying it had a station, a camp site, and some ranches nearby. FOARP (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly more people lived there than the station master, although probably no more than 30, per Census figures. As to what constitutes legal recognition, having a post office and census count is fine for me. Why try to delete this pretty well-sourced stub when there are plenty of less-notable GNIS errors out there? We've established this isn't one of them. If a place (district, township, etc.) has a census count, I can't think of an example of an article being deleted. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been involved in cases where we've bulk-deleted thousands of locations mentioned in a census or census-style database. More than one. Also cases where we've mass re-directed hundreds of locations with bare mentions in a census-style databases.

The figure of 30 is for the district as whole, not the station that is the subject of this article. Were we to try to refactor the article to be about the census district this would also not be good as census tracts aren't notable under WP:GEOLAND, since such districts do not actually indicate that any real community was present at that location but instead just count the number of people within an area, nothing more. FOARP (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the sources describe this as a "village" or confirm that anyone besides the station agent lived there. The census count is for the Lookout census district, not the railroad stop itself. –dlthewave ☎ 00:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is a gazetteer about settlements. This is/was a settlement. --Doncram (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have history enough as a place. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Editorofthewiki. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; if the station and its attendant district were populated settlements (and we can actually cite this to something, as has been done in the article), I don't see what is gained by deleting them. If only the district was populated, this doesn't change much to me (surely there is not enough here to split out into Lookout District, Wyoming and Lookout Station, Wyoming). jp×g 22:29, 15 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lexi Belle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Porn performer. Needs multiple solid sources to meet BLP, GNG & N. What we have is inadequate. Maybe a redirect to the list of penthouse pets? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the current sourcing is fine, and the actress seems notable.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources pass GnG or this a mindless assertion? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Sources seems to be enough, have won multiple awards. Sunil1388 (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)sunil1388[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT, per review of available sources. Industry awards as indicators of notability have been deprecated, along the entire WP:PORNBIO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources consist of a hot porn stars list (not substantial coverage), interviews, cast listings/mentions and award rosters. An independent search just finds more trivial mentions. Nothing to satisfy WP:BASIC or prove meeting criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 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) 14:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Falk (band)[edit]

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

This was previously nominated twice for deletion. Originally created as Falk, Musicians In 2009, the outcome was "Delete", but seems to have been redirected and kept under its current name. In 2013, the outcome was "Keep". Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO and was written by User:FalkMusic COI same-name person. The sources are WP:NOTRELIABLE - blogs, YouTube, Wordpress. Nothing indicates these two ever accomplished anything notable. A Google search brings up one YouTube at-home video, which proves nothing. 12 years after the first AFD, it still exists and shows no notability for the subject. — Maile (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Maile (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not pass WP:GNG for reasons laid out by the nominator. ––FormalDude ^talk 08:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails on notability grounds, as sourcing is primary, self-published, and/or not significant. Pilaz (talk) 02:09, 24 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Williams (American actress)[edit]

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

Kept in the bad old days of Pornbio when a nomination would do. Is no where near current standards and this lacks any reliable sourcing to build an article around. Suggest a redirect to the avn hall of fame Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I kept running into the talk show host when I searched for her so I added "porn" and I mainly found porn videos. If these awards and award nominations are not enough to establish notability, then I also suggest a redirect. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to find some brief mentions in books published by mainstream publishers. e.g. here she is given as an example of "sympathetic portrayals of transsexuals", alongside Christine Jorgensen and Renee Richards. This book mentions her by way of another book which cites some of her writing. That other book doesn't seem to have snippets available on Google Books, but it seems likely it may have more in-depth coverage. She's also quoted in this Daily Beast article. Colin M (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT, per review of available sources. Industry awards as indicators of notability have been deprecated, along with the entire WP:PORNBIO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:50, 20 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 00:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Swift[edit]

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

Run of the mill porn performer bio with the exception of the leaving porn to join a church to do outreach and the cancer announcement. Sadly these turn out to be sourced to press releases and self referential sources so actually there is nothing here that we can use to attribute notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AVN, a porn church (what?), and press releases for sources. Nothing to meet notability criteria. Zaathras (talk) 01:57, 17 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.