< November 17	November 19 >

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 Bulbul (singer). Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monument to Bulbul[edit]

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

Article has only one source, a speech by President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, who is not a reliable source for anything. Vexations (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete same sourcing issues nom identified are present in Russian, Azerbaijani articles as all appear to be translations of one another. There's definitely no English sourcing to be found, but I don't read either to confirm a lack of in-language sources. Imagine they'd be in one of the other articles if they existed. Shame we can't find anything in depth on the sculptor which might make it notable as a work of art. Star Mississippi 01:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/further integrate with existing section in Bulbul. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, added a good source^[1] from the Bulbul page (Azar news). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Prominent singer's statue unveiled in Baku". Archived from the original on 2017-12-01. Retrieved 2014-03-01.

Extended discussion about a source and contributor behavior
Randy Kryn If you really think azernews is a reliable source, I think you'll find this article on how Azerbaijan’s government uses art to improve its image abroad illuminating. https://hyperallergic.com/615519/artwashing-a-dictatorship/ Does Wikipedia want to be part of that effort? Do you? Vexations (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] In this instance the source affirms that the statue exists (as images on the pages in question show), that it honors Bulbul (who remains quite honored and esteemed in his part of the world), and that it was dedicated and stands in the open air. Enough there to show that the statue has notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] To summarize, valid notability criteria for public sculpture, according to you are: it exists it depicts someone who is notable it was dedicated (I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, an unveiling?) it stands in the open air Right? Vexations (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] The source I've added speaks for itself, and hopefully is enough to save this page. Thanks for making coming to AfD such a joy, like Christmas in July. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] The source requires context; it is a propaganda outlet for the dictator Ilham Aliyev, who has a track record of using public art projects to burnish his reputation abroad. I'm actually not so sure I enjoy helping him accomplish that goal, but you apparently do. Vexations (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Yes, me and Ilham are old drinking buddies. Some editors were just discussing elsewhere how AfD pages shouldn't be battlegrounds, and this kind of stuff comes up. No matter what I-ham (I call him I-ham, and he laughs) wants or doesn't want, the singer seems to have been a national icon who died three months before Aliyev was born, and thus had nothing to do with him, whose statue seems entirely appropriate for the national memory. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] For context, but I suppose every closer already knows this, I note that you almost always !vote Keep, except once, with an equally thoughtful contribution. Vexations (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Correct, because if I agree something should be deleted and actually take the time to look at it (not often, this place is the tunnel-ride of Wikipedia) the trend is usually already going that way and I skip it. My personal style. If I stop and vote to Keep it's because I mean it, the discussion is often in full-swing, and I've seen many well written and popular pages fail (thinking of the Kill Bill character page). I also never look at the daily AfD list (so many) but usually get here by checking the Visual Arts project list or seeing something ting on my watchlist. Thanks for the link, I'll be interested in reviewing my numbers later. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] I made a little "anthology" of your contributions of the last 24 months. here. I think that suffices as evidence that your !votes at AfD should be ignored, because you consistently fail to comply with WP:DISCUSSAFD. Based on my findings, I think requesting a topic ban from participating in deletion discussions is called for. Vexations (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Just today I was kind of told on another page that cancel culture at AfD wasn't real. Must be my imagination. In any case, the source I've added to this page should save it, all things being equal, so there's that to add to your good faith effort (which seems to not include quoting follow-up discussions, including this one).Randy Kryn (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Vexations: If I were you I wouldn't take away from the recent ANI about ARS members that going after everyone who mainly votes keep with nonsense reasons will be successful. Please pick your battles and don't waste people's time with low hanging fruit like Randy Kryn's voting behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion about a source and contributor behavior

Randy Kryn If you really think azernews is a reliable source, I think you'll find this article on how Azerbaijan’s government uses art to improve its image abroad illuminating. https://hyperallergic.com/615519/artwashing-a-dictatorship/ Does Wikipedia want to be part of that effort? Do you? Vexations (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance the source affirms that the statue exists (as images on the pages in question show), that it honors Bulbul (who remains quite honored and esteemed in his part of the world), and that it was dedicated and stands in the open air. Enough there to show that the statue has notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize, valid notability criteria for public sculpture, according to you are:
- it exists
- it depicts someone who is notable
- it was dedicated (I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, an unveiling?)
- it stands in the open air
Right? Vexations (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source I've added speaks for itself, and hopefully is enough to save this page. Thanks for making coming to AfD such a joy, like Christmas in July. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source requires context; it is a propaganda outlet for the dictator Ilham Aliyev, who has a track record of using public art projects to burnish his reputation abroad. I'm actually not so sure I enjoy helping him accomplish that goal, but you apparently do. Vexations (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, me and Ilham are old drinking buddies. Some editors were just discussing elsewhere how AfD pages shouldn't be battlegrounds, and this kind of stuff comes up. No matter what I-ham (I call him I-ham, and he laughs) wants or doesn't want, the singer seems to have been a national icon who died three months before Aliyev was born, and thus had nothing to do with him, whose statue seems entirely appropriate for the national memory. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For context, but I suppose every closer already knows this, I note that you almost always !vote Keep, except once, with an equally thoughtful contribution. Vexations (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, because if I agree something should be deleted and actually take the time to look at it (not often, this place is the tunnel-ride of Wikipedia) the trend is usually already going that way and I skip it. My personal style. If I stop and vote to Keep it's because I mean it, the discussion is often in full-swing, and I've seen many well written and popular pages fail (thinking of the Kill Bill character page). I also never look at the daily AfD list (so many) but usually get here by checking the Visual Arts project list or seeing something ting on my watchlist. Thanks for the link, I'll be interested in reviewing my numbers later. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made a little "anthology" of your contributions of the last 24 months. here. I think that suffices as evidence that your !votes at AfD should be ignored, because you consistently fail to comply with WP:DISCUSSAFD. Based on my findings, I think requesting a topic ban from participating in deletion discussions is called for. Vexations (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just today I was kind of told on another page that cancel culture at AfD wasn't real. Must be my imagination. In any case, the source I've added to this page should save it, all things being equal, so there's that to add to your good faith effort (which seems to not include quoting follow-up discussions, including this one).Randy Kryn (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: If I were you I wouldn't take away from the recent ANI about ARS members that going after everyone who mainly votes keep with nonsense reasons will be successful. Please pick your battles and don't waste people's time with low hanging fruit like Randy Kryn's voting behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't pass the notability test. GoodDay (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source I've added, solely about the statue, seems to give that test a run for its money. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're not using rude edit summaries towards me, like another editor has been, when reverting me from his talkpage? then I'm cool. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 6 links on the page in different languages. I see no reason to delete this article.--Rəcəb Həsənbəyov (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is something very strange going on with the dates on those sources. Archived in 2017 and retrieved even earlier, in 2014. ~~All before the monument was erected.~~ Before the article was written. How does that happen? Vexations (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The statue was unveiled in 2012 (31 October). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article, not the monument. In this diff [1] from 8 November 2021 Randy Kryn introduces a citation with a parameter/value pair of access-date=2014-03-01. Vexations (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article states near the top "7 November 2012 10:18 (UTC+04:00)", a week after the unveiling. Don't know why the various dates show up. I notice you've added the words "Before the article was written" in your comment after I'd answered, which clears up your concern, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, now I'm even more suspicious. You're not being entirely forthcoming about how you manage to access a source7 years prior to your involvement with the article. Honest mistake? Perhaps. An explanation would be welcome. Vexations (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above when I posted it on November 8, found it on the Bulbar page. Perhaps I should have linked the page: Bulbul (singer). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources that have been added after the nomination, were all published around the same time, on the day of, or immediately after the date of the unveiling: [2] 31.10.2012, [3] 01.11.2012, [4] 31 Oktyabr 2012, [5] 31 october 2012, 13:00,[6] 7 November 2012, [7] 01.11.2012. They're mostly identical. I rely on machine translation, but [1] contains a phrase that translates as: "This was reported by the official press". There is no original reporting. That is unsurprising, because Azerbaijan does not have a free press. It is also clear that there is no sustained coverage after 2012. Vexations (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't expect sustained coverage, it was put up and unveiled with handshakes and speeches. Then, as long as it wasn't vandalized or dragged down, or the site of a rededication or something, probably not much else would show up. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notable works of art receive sustained coverage. They are subject to a critical discourse, they are studied, discussed and taught. Vexations (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ, especially when it comes to modern public statues. Perhaps should call in Another Believer, one of worldwide Wikipedia's sculpture artwork editors, who would have knowledge of this. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:Canvassing. Vexations (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could have just as easily put a notice on the WikiProject Sculpture page, which would have likely have reached Another Believer. We are differing on a notability question concerning sculpture, AB would probably know the answer. Pinging directly eliminates the round-about. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then call everybody else who watches that page. Vexations (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the given reason for deletion, "Article has only one source, a speech by President of Azerbaijan" appears to be no longer true based on current state of the article. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards merge to Bulbul (singer)#Commemmoration, which already has the image and discusses much of what little there is to say about the statue. Its significance appears to be that it honors its subject, and its location and the dignitaries who turned out for its unveiling are relevant to the fame of the singer, not any particular artistic quality of the statue. BD2412 T 05:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BD2412. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob drobbs, may I ask why? A good source has been added, which makes the nomination language void, and the nominator seems, from the nom and the extended discussion in the cage above, to base much of their logic for deletion of a monument because a dictator unveiled the statue and gave a speech. Even though the singer died three months before the alleged dictator was born. BD2412 actually gives good reasons to Keep. The monument's notability stems from the iconic status of the singer and that it not only honors him in his hometown but very near his own home. What better place for a monument. As for not being a noted artistic piece, that seems irrelevant to keeping Wikipedia articles on monuments and other statues. There are probably hundreds of pages of individual statues which do not merit artistic greatness, university study, or professional papers. They just honor their subject. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect intended to the singer or his statue, but I think you largely answered your own question here: The monument's notability stems from the iconic status of the singer...

It's not significantly notable on it's own to merit a page, and it just makes more sense on the singer's page. A redirect should make it easy to find. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that, I think what I gave was good reasons to merge. There is nothing to say about the statue that is not in the context of the subject. If all of that content is included in the commemmoration section for this subject, and the title redirects to that section, no information is lost for the reader. BD2412 T 01:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is called a portrait statue. There may be thousands, surely hundreds, of portrait paintings and portrait statue artwork pages on Wikipedia notable for being modeled after a well-known (or not so well known) person. The argument that the page should be deleted because the monument depicts a singer seems unreasonable in light of those precedents. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has proposed that the page should be deleted because the monument depicts a singer. Please don't misrepresent an argument made by another participant in this discussion. Vexations (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lol (I only write that when I'm doing it). (still lol). My apology for being unclear. I don't think anyone wants to delete a nation's monument to a singer because he was a singer. What I should have said was simply that this is a portrait statue, the sculptural equivalent of a portrait painting. There are hundreds of articles on portrait sculptures on Wikipedia, why single this one out? Really don't know why you all want to delete it, that dictator reasoning takes the cake but I guess is as good as any. A good source has been found, the page is typical of its genre, and the singer sings on in sculptural form in a national monument very near his home. Nothing wrong or atypical in having a Wikipedia page about it. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're on the topic of lack of clarity in your writing: "takes the cake" can mean both the best or the worst of something. Which is it? Vexations (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both, when experienced from different viewpoints. I view the dictator's involvement with the statue as tangential and has nothing to do with the artwork being kept or not kept. You, unless I'm reading your comments in this discussion wrong, would like to delete the page because the dictator spoke at the unveiling. Room enough for both opinions, but I doubt a Wikipedia guideline covers deleting dictator-approved-artwork. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have completely misunderstood what I wrote. Vexations (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If so then again my apologies. Either way, good faith reasons for deleting this article maybe should be analyzed and compared to the standard article of such artworks and monuments on Wikipedia, into which it falls nicely. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bulbul as there only appears to have been a flurry of activity around unveiling then nothing, and nothing on the work of art itself ie. no analysis of its artistic merits, history/development of the statue. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bulbul. As a founder and long-time participant in our WikiProject Public Art, it's best practice to usually discuss sculptures and public art about a specific subject (i.e. a celebrity) in the article about them unless it's an exception - tons of reliable secondary sourcing (not just brief press announcements about it being installed or unveiled), it's done by a famous artist, and so forth. I think this one is fine to mention in the singer's article. Missvain (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. References are an example of WP:SBST -- effectively press releases about emplacement and unveiling of the statue etc.; really the topic of coverage is a routine event, not so much the statue as a work of art. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have done some work on a merge, please take a look and improve the section, as Bulbar's monument seems destined for lesser Wikipedia glory. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by Trainsandotherthings. (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 03:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Screwdriver[edit]

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

None of these articles are notable, and they consist almost entirely of plot summary and trivia. Not enough references to establish notability, either. An IP has decided to undo my initial redirect of these articles, along with many similar ones, so I am going through a formal AfD. As in the previous AfD I started on a Woody Woodpecker cartoon stub, I am seeking for almost all of these stubs to be redirected to Woody Woodpecker filmography. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puny Express.

To avoid a shitshow, I will be listing these in groups of 5, so it isn't too difficult for editors to evaluate each set, rather than the 100 all at once. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to edit warring by an IP, this AfD has been messed up and now lists a deletion discussion notice at Woody Woodpecker filmography, which is not what I intended. I'll admit I'm not entirely sure how to fix this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This can be withdrawn, I'm not exactly sure what went wrong but it's obviously not working the way I intended. I will refile it properly once I get my head screwed on correctly again. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:49, 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. Based on the presentation by User:theleekycauldron, the subject does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN nor WP:GNG at this time.

Thank you everyone for your participation and assuming good faith on this decision. If you have evidence that contradicts this decision and wish to protest, please take it to Deletion Review rather than my talk page. Happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Rift[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Tha Rift meets notability number 5 as he was signed to Rostrum Records while in the trio FREEWIFI. On the label they released the album "connected" and three singles including "Ego," and "Took off." Rostrum is an independent record label that has housed many notable artists such as Mac Miller, Wiz Khalifa, Rich the Kid and Mod Sun. He also meets number 1 under notability with references from LA Weekly, WorldStarHipHop, Complex Magazine, and AllHipHop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayleyrae319 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:theleekycauldron
https://allhiphop.com/features/tha-rift-talks-can-you-hear-us-now-inspired-by-george-floyd-daunte-wright/	Interview with subject	Not RSP-greenlit, but seems good		✘ No
https://open.spotify.com/artist/7fEi8ewyfKEonfDoJtebVt	Primary source	Primary source	Just for statistics	✘ No
https://mrhollywoodmagazine.com/tha-rift/		~ not particularly reputable, not convinced it's reliable, but it's not nothing	~ eh, not much there, but it's something	~ Partial
https://www.sheenmagazine.com/tha-rift-on-his-debut-edm-album-lessons-learned-in-the-music-industry-more/	Interview with subject	~ not particularly convinced of reliability, but I wouldn't dismiss it		✘ No
https://thehollywooddigest.com/tha-rift-and-kash-young-announce-new-single-fiji-water/		The "sightings" section, as well as the notice to follow their social media accounts, means I'm not brimming with confidence		✘ No
https://ventsmagazine.com/2021/03/01/exclusive-interview-with-tha-rift-what-lies-behind-the-music/	Interview with subject	~ not sold on reliability	Pretty barebones	✘ No
http://voyagela.com/interview/meet-trevor-tha-rift-donnelly-tha-rift-long-beach/		~		~ Partial
https://parlemag.com/2018/03/hip-hop-collective-freewifi/	~ Lots of interview, rest is promotional	absolutely promotional		✘ No
https://hiphopsince1987.com/2017/videos/freewifi-ego-video/		seems promotional	no significant coverage of tha rift	✘ No
https://www.complex.com/pigeons-and-planes/2017/09/freewifi-salsa		seems all right	not much in significant coverage	✘ 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)).

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:theleekycauldron
https://www.laweekly.com/top-10-artists-you-should-be-following-on-instagram/	"brand partner content"?	promotional	~ eh, not much	✘ 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)).

Delete: Source analysis doesn't turn up a GNG pass. As for WP:NMUSICIAN no. 5, that would make FREEWIFI notable, not necessarily Tha Rift. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:50, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn by Royal Autumn Crest. (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 03:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lenggang Jakarta[edit]

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

Non-notable food court, could not find any references after a quick check, has not been edited in nearly two years, unclear how it can pass WP:GNG Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My quick search seemed to find references in Bahasa[8] and English[9]. It was even covered in Forbes.com.[10]. For now, I'm leaning to keep it based on I don't think the poster did enough research before putting up the AFD. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Bob, happy to withdraw my nomination. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:55, 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 deleted. (non-admin closure) ~~Waddles~~ Gobbles 🍂 🦃 16:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WABetainfo[edit]

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

Article for a news website that lacks WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE only yields brief mentions and the website being cited in news articles. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ― Qwerfjkl talk 22:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a vague stub which does not explain why this news site is noteworthy.TH1980 (talk) 01:19, 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. Daniel (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University of Toronto Department of Computer Science[edit]

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

Non-notable academic department at the University of Toronto. Note WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which isn't technically a policy but might as well be that "Faculties, departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field". The Department of Computer Science at the University of Toronto is not very important aside from being the first department to offer a computer science doctorate in Canada and having strong university rankings for what seems to be their undergraduate program. I'm not detecting it being especially important in the field of computer science; just above average. Going on the WP:NORG criteria, almost all of the sources in the article are affiliated with the University of Toronto and fail the independent criteria, including the full book-length paean commissioned by the university to chronicle its mathematics department. The Scott Campbell source was written by a professor who works at the University of Toronto, and only briefly mentions the Department of Computer Science itself. Likewise for the Atkinson source and the source about Magen, both of which are obituaries that only briefly mention the department itself. The few ranking sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage and are not significant, being rote listings. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 19:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 19:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 19:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 19:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment U of T is known for their medical program, among many others. It's not the "premier" school for computer science in Canada, is just chugs along as would any other department. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: I might nominate the rest of the articles in Category:Computer science departments in Canada for deletion as well if this ends as delete. If U of T's dept doesn't make the cut I doubt any of the rest will. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 20:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was established in the 50s/60's, then goes into the 70's, then the article goes to 2002. Nothing terribly notable seems to have happened there over the years and I can't find any pioneers in the field from this program. Not to say it's a bad program, just not notable for our case. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable people can be part of the list of the university's notable people, the information about divisions can probably found in the department's website by those interested, and it seems to lack notable events. Possibly this article's subject's faculty could be expanded with this article's contents. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Object This department is consistently ranked as one of the top ten CS departments in the world, and is especially noted for world leading research, including many key developments in Human-Computer Interaction in the 1970s and 1980s, and Computer Graphics more recently (through the Dynamic Graphics Project). It's also where much of the current research on Machine Learning was pioneered, through the work of Geoff Hinton (the "father of deep learning"). I would argue it should be tagged for improvement, rather than deletion.Steve Easterbrook (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into the University of Toronto. None of the sourcing convinces me this school should have its own article. Missvain (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no indication that this particular department has received enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Also, a redirect seems unnecessary because the article University of Toronto only mentions this department a single time, and that particular mention ("Within the Faculty of Arts and Science, notable departments include the Department of Computer Science and the Department of Mathematics") might not even be worth keeping in that article if this article no longer exists. --Zander251 (talk) 06:50, 27 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 per consensus. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monisha Shah[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any sources that indicate WP:BIO is met. The sources cited are mainly primary sources, with some very brief mentions in secondary sources. Per the article talk page, the article only appears to have been created because she is the chair of the board at Wikimedia UK but as we should all know, notability is not inherited. SmartSE (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Delete Then it must be delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 19:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
- User:Spiderone, why not the UK list, since she has lived in UK since a child?
Delete I agree with Smartse; can't see evidence of notability at a glance. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 20:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to wquestions of notability , I would consider G11. This is indistinguishable from any other promotional bio.I note especially the puffery in the infobox, and the irrelevant "family" section. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seriously? "In previous roles, she has served as Trustee of the Donmar Warehouse, Tate, Foundling Museum and the National Gallery. Her last full-time executive role was at BBC Worldwide, where she worked for 10 years before stepping down in 2010.... In December 2015, Monisha was invited by the Prime Minister to join the Committee on Standards in Public Life" (6/7 current members here have bios). That's easily notable; these are very heavyweight positions. I wouldn't quite argue that being a trustee of the National Gallery gives a presumption of notability, but it's pretty close. Johnbod (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: Johnbod is a former member of WMUK. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh my Gaaaaaad!! That's terrible!!! Johnbod (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Considering that until yesterday when it was pointed out at WP:COIN you had a WMUK userbox on your userpage, and we're dealing with the current chair of WMUK its worth pointing out yes. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 07:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Member of Committee on Standards in Public Life and assorted high-power memberhips and trusteeships, clearly prominent in UK public life. PamD 08:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the artice on Committee on Standards in Public Life is out of date and does not show the current membership (noted on talk page) but she served a term there although not a current member. PamD 08:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A bureaucrat in a notable organisation isn't automatically notable. The positions Johnbod and PamD list don't seem to have led to any significant coverage in secondary sources. – Joe (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - putting the COI issue aside for now, this person does not appear to be notable. Like Joe Roe above, I could find no significant coverage about her in secondary sources, and none of the positions held currently or previously appear to confer a presumption of notability. firefly ( t · c ) 11:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod and PamD. I'm a member of WMUK, but that is hardly relevant; to the best of my knowledge have never interacted with Monisha Shah, who was clearly notable before her WMUK role. Her entry at [11] alone shows sufficient roles to warrant an entry in Wikipedia; and that "In 2009, she was elected Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum." There is further coverage in [12], [13], [14], [15], & [16]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these rationales have any basis in policy. Feel free to create WP:IMPORTANTJOB if you like, but if someone is important, they receive significant coverage. Let's examine the coverage you link to:
  - [17] Monisha Shah was the only non-white member of the committee – but she stepped down earlier this year
  - [18] The departure of Monisha Shah and the appointments of Ewen Fergusson and Professor Gillian Peele in July left the eight-strong committee all-white for the first time since at least 2015
  - [19] Shah is chair of Rose Bruford College of Theatre and Performance, in London. She is also a trustee of ArtFund, an independent fundraising charity for art. She was previously director of sales for emerging markets at BBC Worldwide. She is a member of the government’s Committee on Standards in Public Life, which works on ethical standards in public life in England. Note that this is a student newspaper, so of little use for demonstrating notability.
  - [20] The judges .... Monisha Shah, media consultant
  - [21] Monisha Shah, an independent media consultant.
- Apart from Varsity, these are all extremely brief and trivial mentions, far from WP:SIGCOV. SmartSE (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, she also has an entry in Who's Who. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Re: Who's Who, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources "There is no consensus on the reliability of Who's Who UK. It is a reference work with information mainly collected from the people concerned. Editors are divided on whether sufficient editorial control exists, and whether it is an independent source." Edwardx (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - That relates to the content of the work; nevertheless, she is regarded as significant enough to warrant an entry. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whilst it may be an improvement on the others, by itself, it is still not enough to meet WP:SIGCOV as it is only a single source. SmartSE (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no GNG sources, end of story. Smh at a WMUK member in here arguing Who's Who, have some dignity. Levivich 14:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as original creator of the article, with a declared potential COI). I have added some more references including several secondary sources which are independent of the organisations where she has severed as a trustee. Her contribution to civil society in the UK, through a range of public sector and charitable bodies, is considerably greater than many sports or pop music biographies although these tend to gain greater coverage in the popular press.— Rod ^talk 15:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and all other standards. Editors with COI should not vote in AfDs. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not meet GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SmartSE's analysis. Sources are trivial at best and non-contributory at worst. This is like the articles of many non-notable marketing professionals that litter the archives of AfD. WP:ANYBIO, which I think applies to this article and WP:GNG are not met. Plenty of mentions of this person but little about them. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note Future (and recent) commenters (and the closer) should view this version of the article, and not the stub to which it has just been farcically reduced. I've noted some of the worst removals on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, shredding an article in a tendentious way during the Afd process is inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's quite normal to trim poorly sourced parts of an article while it is at AfD, so you can see if what is left is worth saving. – Joe (talk) 08:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, but we're not discussing "poorly sourced parts of an article", as the linked talk page discussion makes clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Come off it, Joe - this, removing about 30 sources, many of the highest quality, is not] a "trim [of] poorly sourced parts of an article". Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - John which sources specifically are you referring to as "of the highest quality” I don’t believe that I removed a single instance of significant coverage from an independent WP:RS. I assume you don’t mean Amazon [22] OFCOM meeting minutes [23] an opinion piece on a blog [24] and numerous press releases? Note that you mischaracterize the diff you use as its an amalgam that includes [25] which was a revert on COI grounds. Also in the future if you’re going to attack me at least have the decency to tag me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        (ec) Are you seriously suggesting that ONLY sources directly relevant to a GNG debate belong in an article at all? Totally unbelievable!! Got any policy support for that?? Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        What makes you think I’m suggesting that? I’m saying that I don’t believe that any of the sources I removed were "of the highest quality” as you have asserted. Also please remember that you have a COI so for your own sake please keep it civil. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        A government website is a reliable source for biographical information about a government appointee. Where is your rule which says we cannot trust the government's site for information about other aspects of her life? PamD 20:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of some notability whatsoever.--Darwinek (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jip Orlando. The person is not notable and there is no significant coverage even if some WMUK members say otherwise. Votes of WMUK members should not be given weight because of COI issues. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 23:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no significant coverage of this person in independent reliable sources. And the COI issues here stink to high heaven. Inf-in MD (talk)
Delete Great credentials, brilliant CV but non-notable as per Wiki guidelines. It is common for folks to perceive high achieving individuals as notable which is not true. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nomadicghumakkad's excellent summary. Highly accomplished, but not notable. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shah is so obviously one of the current "great and the good", perhaps helped by appointing groups desperate to increase diversity, that if we delete this article I doubt it will be too long before we find she's got a life peerage and we're re-creating it for a member of the House of Lords. If she was doing anything scandalous, being booted off these committees ahead of normal expiry times etc, she'd be getting the media coverage which would more clearly make her "notable" in WP terms. As it is, we just have numerous official, reliable, sources, which substantiate her work in various positions, most of which sources have been removed on the basis that we can't rely on the "self-published source" (aka official website) of a reputable organisation to support anything about her except for her position within that organisation, which seems a bizarre interpretation of "self-published sources". I'd rather trust a gov.uk page than many newspapers. Ah well. I think she'll be back, even if deleted this time. PamD 21:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, plus for most of the time she has been a senior executive at the BBC (where somebody got the idea that she is a public relations person is beyond me, like much on this page), who don't encourage such people to have a personal media profile. Unlike the nonentities with PR agents who clutter up WP. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Andy Mabbett et al with the standards committee being particularly relevant, as are BBC roles. Wikimedia chair or whatever is relatively irrelevant but should not place at a disadvantage. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real indication of notability. Arguments in favor of keeping seem mainly around the fact that she ranks highly in the bureaucracy of notable organizations and does useful work. But neither of those are really notability guidelines; a Wikipedia entry is not an award given for good service. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:00, 26 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 23:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vurgun (web series) characters[edit]

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

I am not finding any reliable, independent sources for this list. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 18:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 18:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 18:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, is this deletion request for the main article of characters or the wikipedia page of the series itself? The series still has published episodes on YouTube and detailed character analysis in Instagram. There are more sources I can cite. --Ayla Arcan (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read the heading and nomination statement on the very page you're reading right now. It's clearly about the character list article. Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instagram or YouTube are not reliable or Independent sources. Are there sources in books, news media, or other reliable sources? --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 18:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft. Shrikanthv (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as list/fancruft. The list is also completely unsourced, so there is nothing to merge. IceWelder [✉] 08:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FANCRUFT. Mann Mann (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mann Mann -- this is the quintessential definition of fancruft. Nomader (talk) 19:17, 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 23:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Gheran[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP (possibly an WP:AUTOBIO as it was created by a WP:SPA who maintained and updated it over five years without ever making a single Wikipedia edit about any other topic) of a musician with no strong or properly sourced claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim here is a bit of regional (but not national) touring -- but NMUSIC #4 isn't passed just by saying a tour happened, and actually requires showing a non-trivial amount of reliable source media coverage about the tour, and that's absent. Nothing else here is a strong notability claim, and the referencing consists of two primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and two hits of "local guy does stuff" in his own hometown newspaper, which isn't enough coverage to get him over WP:GNG all by itself in lieu of having to accomplish something that would pass NMUSIC's achievement-based criteria. There's just nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nominator has good reasons. Agree with all that he said. Chelokabob (talk) 03:26, 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 redirect to FK Proleter Novi Sad. Fenix down (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stadion Slana Bara[edit]

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

Sports stadium that has been unsourced for over 9 years, no reliable sources found other than routine sports coverage and casual mentions. Attempt to redirect reverted by a single editor who pointily reverted numerous unsourced articles from being redirected to their associated club articles, following a flap at RfD -- and perhaps one should take note that the editor in question, with only a handful of edits, has a user name identical to the stadium involved. [26]. Per WP:GEOFEAT, "Buildings, including private residences and 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." Ravenswing 12:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was put to AFD just to illustrate a point. The above user deleted or redirected half of the stadium articles from that country. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hardly; I went through a list of 51 stadiums -- which are not remotely all the stadiums in the country -- and redirected 19, preferring that to deletion. The editor above reverted the redirects without a valid reason, and I suggest that he is the one being pointy. In any event, this article cannot be kept without reliable sourcing; I suggest that if Ludost Mlačani wishes to do the former, he ought to provide the latter ... and at the same time he proffers a valid ground on which to keep the article, which he has failed to do. Ravenswing 12:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20. actually, just after a RfD debate about one stadium. 20 out of 51 of stadiums in a country, that were doing just fine for 10 years or more, some of them from the top league. If that is not a classic case of POINTY I do not know what is. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to the team. Single line stub. Only reference is an unreliable source. Can be dealt with in the article on the team. significant coverage in reliable sources is required to satisfy WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - top level stadium. Giant Snowman 12:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could you direct us to the notability criterion establishing notability for "top level stadiums?" Myself, I haven't seen that anything of the sort exists. Ravenswing 19:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally stand by my vote but WP:NSTADIUM exists and also some previous AfDs kept stadiums in Martinique and such... because they were "tier 1" stadiums. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NSTADIUM is an essay from an inactive Wikiproject, not a genuine notability guideline. Ravenswing 11:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus. Editors are reminded the correct SNG to be referencing is WP:GEOFEAT.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FK Proleter Novi Sad per Polyamorph, and the precedent in similar Serbian stadium articles. No such user (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FK Proleter Novi Sad - no evidence whatsoever of a GNG/NBUILD (aka WP:GEOFEAT, which states Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events.) pass. We need to be enforcing notability. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 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 redirect to FK Mladost Apatin. As a vote split pretty evenly between keep and not. Given the keep votes say nothing backed up by any guideline they are as weak as can be. I think this is the best option, no history has been lost and it can restored by anyone bold enough, but we no longer have an article which, when challenged, not a single editor has provided even one source showing significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SC Rade Svilar[edit]

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

Small town sports stadium for minor-league team that has been unsourced for 12 years, no reliable sources found other than routine sports coverage and casual mentions. Attempt to redirect reverted by a single editor who pointily reverted numerous unsourced articles from being redirected to their associated club articles, following a flap at RfD -- and perhaps one should take note that the editor in question, with only a handful of edits, has a user name identical to the stadium involved. [27]. Per WP:GEOFEAT, "Buildings, including private residences and 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." Ravenswing 12:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current tier of a club is irrelevant. This stadium was used also for higher leagues in the past. The article was put to AFD just to illustrate a point. The above user deleted or redirected half of the stadium articles from that country. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hardly; I went through a list of 51 stadiums -- which are not remotely all the stadiums in the country -- and redirected 19, preferring that to deletion. The editor above reverted the redirects without a valid reason, and I suggest that he is the one being pointy. In any event, this article cannot be kept without reliable sourcing; I suggest that if Ludost Mlačani wishes to do the former, he ought to provide the latter. Ravenswing 12:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20. actually, just after a RfD debate about one stadium. 20 out of 51 of stadiums in a country, that were doing just fine for 10 years or more, some of them from the top league. If that is not a classic case of POINTY I do not know what is. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article has lasted for 10 years doesn't mean it's notable by default. It still needs to meet a notability guideline. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to the team. Unsourced single line stub, can be dealt with in the article on the team. significant coverage in reliable sources is required to satisfy WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ought to be improved not delete, as stadium for former first division squad.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That requires sources. Do you have some? What notability policy does beong a stadium of a first division squad satisfy? Any reason why this can't be addressed in the team article? Polyamorph (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ortizesp. Giant Snowman 12:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ortizesp doesn't proffer a valid policy ground to keep. Would you have any yourself? Ravenswing 19:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No harm repisting for another week, but nothing here really showing the ground satisfies WP:GEOFEAT
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FK Mladost Apatin where it is mentioned - no evidence of meeting WP:NBUILD or WP:GNG, the first of which states Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events.. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED just because the club happens to be notable. The comments regarding the club formerly being a top tier side have no relevance to any inclusion guideline. Merge would be okay as well although there is barely any content currently. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 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 23:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Uchendu[edit]

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

WP:ADMASQ possible undisclosed paid editing on a non notable subject created by a serial LTA on a subject that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable found. Ecofeminist is not a term I've heard before either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ecofeminism is a thing, but this woman does not appear to be notable. There are some news articles quoting her but total absence of in-depth coverage. (t · c) buidhe 19:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:15, 25 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 23:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. B. M. Sohel Rashid[edit]

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

Non-notable actor/poet. The cited sources are passing mentions. Searches of the usual types, in English and Bengali, found more of the same,[28][29] but no significant coverage in reliable sources. The editor who translated it also wrote the version on the Bengali Wikipedia, where they have been blocked for advertising. Worldbruce (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable actor and writer, citied sources are not enough to show notability of the topic. Fails WP:GNG. Nitesh003 (TALK) 07:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:16, 25 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. Per nominator and failure to also meet WP:GNG.

Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith on this decision. If you disagree and wish to discuss this further, please take it to Deletion Review. Happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alramz[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:NCORP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello, please reconsider the article before deleting ,the subject is mentioned in reliable sources of high quality which I cited, and there are more sources Osamagharib (talk) 23:44, 15 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) 16:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like an WP:ADVERT. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extraneous commentary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ok, delete the article :) This is not an advertisement, and I think that Wikipedia is not the right place to advertise. There are dozens of social media platforms that meet the needs of companies to advertise. Osamagharib (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete the only thing a quick Google search yielded was the company's Bloomberg profile. Though there might be other, especially local, sources that may bring the article to GNG or NCORP standards. And right now the article, except for the lead, does indeed appear to be written like an advertisement. Colonestarrice (talk) 12:45, 25 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW based on the nomination.

Thanks for your contributions and assuming good faith on 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) 20:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Religious affiliations of presidents of the Philippines[edit]

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

This is another list which is an indiscriminate collection of trivia (WP:INDISCRIMINATE, definitely WP:Listcruft, and fails WP:LISTN, verifiability, and WP:NOSTATS. No reliable sources discuss that Religious affiliations of presidents of the Philippines is a topic for scholarly interest. The topic is not notable, and thus should be deleted. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another pointless “political notables by random arbitrary quality” list, and also even more pointless than usual because all but two or three(?) are unsurprisingly Catholics. Dronebogus (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per What Wikipedia is not. Suonii180 (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While religion does play a part in Philippine presidential politics (for example, The Politics of Religion in the Philippines notes instances of religious bloc voting for presidential candidates), that might be appropriate for an article, but not a list. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. SBKSPP (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any group of people can theoretically be listed by any number of parameters. However, most of those combinations of groups and parameters constitute WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. In order for such a list to make for a valid stand-alone article, there needs to be a good reason why that particular group should be listed by that particular parameter. Otherwise, WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. In this case, it has not been demonstrated that there is a good reason to list this group by this parameter. I concur with Clarityfiend that if this is a topic that should be covered on Wikipedia at all, a prose article would be way better than a list. TompaDompa (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTDIR. Avilich (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it additionally goes against the spirit of WP:BLPCAT and WP:LISTPEOPLE ("Special care must be taken when adding living persons to lists based on religion or on sexual orientation"). Pilaz (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 18:53, 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. Per nominator. Missvain (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Punāna[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, due to lack of significant independent coverage in general media. Given sources are dictionary or books on specialized books on WP:FRINGE topics. Some are offline, but my searches did not show any source with significant coverage and only found passing mentions of the word. Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Venkat TL (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am no expert on Hinduism, but this certainly looks like a dictionary-type entry. According to the text, Punāna is a title used to refer to Brahman. If that is the case, a redirect (possibly merge) to 'Brahman' may be the way to go. If this is indeed fringe within Hindu commentary/discourse, then deletion may be more appropriate, but (again) I don't know that. Cnilep (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that redirect suggestion. There is no source for the claim (possibly WP:OR) that Punana means Brahman. This book claims punāna means purification. So it would be inappropriate. Venkat TL (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A copyright violation investigation has been launched on the articles by the creator at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20211117 and the creator has now been blocked. Venkat TL (talk) 17:21, 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 23:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turnercrest, Wyoming[edit]

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

Actually the Turnercrest Ranch, which is also what the aerials show. Not notable as such, so a clear WP:GEOLAND failure. Mangoe (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNIS spam, WP:NOTGAZETTEER, and my comment at Teckla, Wyoming. FOARP (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another non-notable geostub. Avilich (talk) 23:16, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Auto Repair Shop Management Systems[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTADVERTISING, as it's just a list of (US-based) companies with pricing information. This is not encyclopedic content, so should be deleted- if people want this information, they should go to the companies' websites rather than an encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page is quite old (2015) yet it's an orphan and has almost zero traffic to it. Most of these figures and prices are most certainly out of date, and does seem to be out of scope of our policies around directories. I'm an inclusionist at heart so I cannot bring myself to !vote delete what seems to be a good-faith effort to educate folks on this narrow domain, but I just can't see it being maintainable or being in scope. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a trade directory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As stated, it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTAD. --My Pants Metal (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Maproom (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Surprised that this article stayed up for so long. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the article is not eligible to be in Wikipedia. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:21, 25 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. Per nomination.

If you disagree and wish to discuss this further, please take it to Deletion Review. Happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frengky Ardian Batubara[edit]

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

References are fraudulent (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Jonathan Sinaga and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 Hacker Way Siopat Suhu for a wider picture of what is going on here). This person clearly fails WP:GNG with no coverage in actual WP:RS and fails WP:NACTOR with not a single notable or significant role. Also fails WP:NMUSICIAN with no notable musical works. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-11 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 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 13:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Air France Flight 072 (1993)[edit]

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

Not notable aviation incident. Runway overruns are very common. Aircraft was returned to service. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't even pass the WP:AIRCRASH essay. No evidence of deaths, the plane being a write-off, or law/regulation changes. FOARP (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo casualties, no hull loss, no assertion that anything was changed as a result...no notability.TheLongTone (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only fails our project normal inclusion criteria requiring either deaths or hull loss, but no WP:LASTING effects in terms of airworthiness directives, changes in procedures or anything else. Very similar to a single car "fender-bender". - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a minor accident, e.g. WP:AIRCRASH. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this is a minor accident that just happened to involve a large aircraft, and it can be adequately summarized in the article about Faa'a International Airport. Carguychris (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to this being (thankfully, to be sure) a minor aviation accident.TH1980 (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other comments, fails WP:AIRCRASH (not a hull lost, no injuries or fatalities, and no changes to regulations, procedures, or processes) 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 17:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though personally I would like to keep this article, this has no known notabilty or anything revelant so it fails several notability guidelines. KlientNo.1 (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:AIRCRASH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Androes[edit]

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

Contested PROD [30]. Appears to fail NBIO - little to no third party coverage in RS. Unable to independently verify any of the claims. KH-1 (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:BLP having no real sources for the article. Seems to further fail WP:GNG from a few online searches and looks to violate WP:ADV. No prejudice to re-create should these issues be resolved--but we have to be careful with BLP.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete seems to be a vanity page. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:12, 18 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, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RELISTINGISEVIL and WP:UNOPPOSED.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks third party sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:24, 25 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 Triolet per WP:ATD. ✗plicit 12:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biolet[edit]

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

In trying to find sources I was inundated with a kind of composting toilet, so I'm hoping some other folks can help try to assess the notability here. From what is in the page as is, I don't think its notable. A kind of poem used by one author apparently sparingly a century ago is perhaps not fully encyclopedic. I think redirecting to Filinto de Almeida might work, but I wasn't sure enough to do it boldly. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Possible Redirect to Triolet where the form is mentioned with sufficient detail, i.e. very little. It doesn't need a full article. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:36, 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 redirect to Viral Scandal#Episodes. Redirecting as alternative to deletion.

Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith on this decision. If you disagree and wish to discuss this further, please take it to Deletion Review. Happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Viral Scandal episodes [edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Viral Scandal episodes

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

Viral Scandal has only premiered this week and the Wikipedia article for the series isn't long enough to warrant a separate article for episodes TheHotwiki (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, textbook example of what Wikipedia is not. Geschichte (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main article for now. If they ever get too many episodes to fit there, then break off to a side article once more. Dream Focus 16:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Viral Scandal#Episodes. Content is already in the article since nomination. Also an IP user could've created it in the main article in the first place instead of requesting someone to do it. SBKSPP (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Viral Scandal#Episodes as suggested above. The title could be useful as a redirect but does not need a separate article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linn Oeymo[edit]

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

Retired actress who only had two minor roles in Good Vibes and Princess and I. Trivial sources. Geschichte (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What amount to bit parts in TV shows and a non-notable fashion designer. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Did my due diligence and was unable to find anything that helps her qualify for WP:GNG - not even enough gossip columns stuff! Appears to be WP:TOOSOON for the subject. Missvain (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON at best.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Horoscope#Angles. There was initially disagreement about whether to let fringe sources establish notability of this fringe concept, but after the redirection was proposed, nobody disagreed with it. As to whether to delete the content first, I can't give the initial "keep" opinions much weight, because they were more about the notability of the concept, and not really about the merits of the existing content. And with respect to that, the nominator's argument that the content is unsourced OR has remained unrebutted, and accordingly it merits oblivion. Sandstein 17:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angle (astrology)[edit]

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

Barely sourced, full of original research. Salimfadhley (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG due to being covered in multiple independent sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

References

^ Meyer, Michael R. (2000). The Astrology of Relationship. iUniverse. pp. 59–62. ISBN 9780595089345.
^ Wilson, James (1996). A Complete Dictionary of Astrology. Health Research. p. 6. ISBN 9780787309732.
^ Goldsmith, Barbara (2008). Astrology Made Easy, A Handy Reference Guide. p. 322. ISBN 9780473141066.
^ Hacket, James Thomas (1836). The Student's Assistant in Astronomy and Astrology. Bray and King. p. 150.
^ Hodges, Henry Clay (1903). Science and Key of Life, Planetary Influences. Vol. 3. Astro Publishing Company. p. 33.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These sources are all written by astrologers, who are practicing a belief system, and therefore have a vested interest in astrology, completely failing WP:INDEPENDENT. Their publishers are also closely affiliated to the subject (they're all occult/new age publishers) and, quite apart from their lack of independence, have no reputation for fact checking at all, nor any established system of editorial oversight (peer review, etc.). They're just not reliable.

I'm not sure whether this topic passes WP:GNG (please do look for other sources), but these are not the sources that will prove it (and certainly not sources that should actually be used in the article!). I would expect keep !voters to cite at least a few truly reliable (in this case, academic) sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of sources from outside the fringe bubble, which are absolutely necessary in order to write about the topic in an encyclopedic way. Self-published books (e.g., from iUniverse) and indeed anything by someone who believes in astrology are not reliable sources. XOR'easter (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't strike them, but I acknowledge that ref #1 and #3 are self-published and therefore unreliable. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:Fringe makes a clear distinction between "notability" and "acceptance". Statements about the the _truth_ or science of astrology can not be sourced to be credulous astrologers, but the policy makes it clear that such sources are not disqualified from being reliable sources for determining the notability of the belief, and describing the details of the belief. ApLundell (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This misrepresents WP:NFRINGE. That guideline does in no way imply that our general notability guidelines, which ask for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, would not apply for fringe. On the contrary, it explicitly states that the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. What the 'Notability versus acceptance' section in WP:NFRINGE actually says is that the fact that a theory is not accepted should not itself be a reason to declare it non-notable. That's of course not to be reversed into the claim that all not-accepted theories are notable, just because they are mentioned in non-independent, unreliable sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derivative house --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While a fringe topic, there's plenty of non-fringe source coverage of the topic. I just did a quick search for recent stuff (and just picked the first thing that popped up on Newspapers.com and ProQuest that had the subject). Of course, a lot of the coverage is going to be of the type of popular magazine type coverage, since astrology isn't a science, but more of a cultural philosophy or...something that isn't based on any form of evidence. Anyways, see here:

Kahn, Nina (February 9, 2021). "Your Descendent Sign Can Reveal A Lot About Your Romantic Life". Bustle.
Brown, Maressa (January 22, 2020). "How to Let Astrocartography Guide Your Wanderlust". Shape.
Meyer, Karen (November 16, 1977). "Changing your address may change your life". Star-Gazette.
Zarka, Philippe (January 2009). "Astronomy and astrology". Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union. 5 (S260): 420–425. doi:10.1017/S1743921311002602.

And I also found something rather interesting. I think it's one of the earliest critical works on astrology. It's a series of essays published in a book by Richard A. Proctor covering the mythological claims and history of the practice of astrology. He notes throughout that it's bunk, but it's meaningful cultural bunk that has had consistent impact on society and culture for centuries. And the book is from 1877. So, that's cool.

Proctor, Richard Anthony (1877). Myths and Marvels of Astronomy. G. P. Putnam's Sons. p. 100-101.

Anyways, as with most of astrology, it's fringe nonsense that, nonetheless, has been notable fringe nonsense that the general public has bought into for whatever reason for centuries. I don't, however, think the four sub-topics of angles need their own articles until they are properly referenced and concisely discussed in a manner that deserves an independent article from this one. And they don't appear to have that yet. Silver seren^C 22:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Bustle, a womens gossip magazine, be a reliable source for astrology concepts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What would be a reliable source for a non-scientific cultural and society subject? Culture magazines, of which women's magazines are included, seem like fine sources for that sort of topic. Since you just need sources about its history and how it's used, not about it doing anything. Since it doesn't do anything, it's cultural mysticism. Silver seren^C 05:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't base encyclopedia articles on "sources" that are either deluded or grifting. Horoscopes are either one or the other. Scrolling down that Bustle link gives more headlines: "Libras Will Relate To These 25 Quotes"; "Manifesting Your Dreams During An Eclipse Is A Bad Idea" ("Because eclipses help us to align with our fates..."). Good grief. Cultural and social topics deserve better coverage than supermarket tabloids or their digital equivalents. XOR'easter (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that magazines are absolutely not to be mistaken for reliable sources. This should be really obvious, but they have no reputation for fact-checking, nor any system of editorial oversight. Zarka 2009 mentions the word "angle" only once, and not with the meaning given to that term in this article. Again, this topic may well pass WP:GNG, but these are not the sources that will prove that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree that this is better treated in horoscope. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Horoscope where the information is already presented in context. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Horoscope as this is an unnecessary fork, per above. Also, the current content, in addition to being rather limited, would fail WP:V (the sole source is used for one author's statement on the matter), so there's not much reason to merge it - sources found above, if they are reliable (of those in Silver seren's post, the first three are some lifestyle pop magazine sections, which are not really acceptable sources for writing an encyclopedia (Wikipedia is not "Pop Culture Wiki", obviously). No comment on the rest, although these seem to offer a more general overview, so are probably good indications that this is better organised and presented to the reader with sufficient context, which is better done in articles which cover the subject more broadly, like the suggested target. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with Redirect, and move of any notable content to Horoscope#Angles. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge/Redirect. While astrology is bullshit, it is notable bullshit, and the details of notable bullshit are sometimes often notable. Whether this is kept as-is or merged/redirected up the hierarchy to a more appropriate article, is fine either way. Deleting the article serves no purpose, except to break attribution or remove useful redirects etc. if it is merged/redirected.--Jayron 32 17:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been linked to from a new section at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Astrology AfD's. jp×g 10:29, 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 redirect to Main Source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Scratch[edit]

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

Non-notable DJ lacks WP:RS, and indepth coverage. Behind the moors (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Main Source article. Blackjays1 (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Main Source: per above. Qwerfjkl talk 22:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Main Source. The article creator is trying to expand coverage of articles related to "golden age" hip hop, which I fully approve of. However, they don't seem to be aware of WP:BANDMEMBER, which says, ""Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability", which is the problem here... Sir Scratch isn't notable for anything apart from being a member of Main Source. Richard3120 (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Main Source article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as others have already said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Main Source per above .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:40, 25 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sefate Democratic Union[edit]

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

Unsourced ministub on a very minor political party in Lesotho, which has as far as I can tell never won a seat in the country's national assembly. The party appears in lists of parties by e.g. CIA World Factbook and gets passing mentions in news articles (e.g. [31]), but I can't find significant coverage or anything else that would allow it to pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Lennart97 (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 10:16, 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 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stride (band)[edit]

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

Unsourced band stub. I can't find significant coverage of the band or their releases in reliable sources, or any other indication of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:12, 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. The article is no longer an unsourced BLP (perm link), and no other rationale for deletion has been provided in the nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Chevolleau[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP Salimfadhley (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He won a Gemini Award in 2004, which is the kind of major acting award that clinches actor notability right on its face, and better reliable sources do exist to repair the article with. Notability for Wikipedia purposes is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on whether they're all already in the article or not, and Richard Chevolleau's sourcing can be, and has been, repaired. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prasad Ram[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline. All sources I could find were either directly affiliated, unreliable (notably the Forbes contributor piece) or based solely on press releases. This VentureBeat source was the best I could find, still not much on Ram himself and seems mostly drawn from a press release. There might be a small chance that others can find suitable non-English sources, hence the AfD rather than PROD, but it seems unlikely. – Teratix ₵ 08:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 08:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 08:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 08:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 08:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is the CEO of a non-notable company and lacks significant coverage. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The business person lack the coverage needed to pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Venkat TL (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable corporate professional. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:42, 25 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. Or at least not delete; merging or renaming can be discussed on the article talk page. Sandstein 17:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pichuna[edit]

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

The article contains unsubstantiated and misquoting of facts present in the references. No Eminent historian talks about occurence of any such "Battle of Pichuna". Any small encounter that may or may not have happened cannot be extrapolated to a battle — Preceding unsigned comment added by RS6784 (talk • contribs) 17:32, November 1, 2021 (UTC)

Comment Discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 18:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The second source establishes that there was an encounter between a force of 10,000 and one of 6,000, in which Nilkanth was killed. The question is whether this was at Pichuna, when it says he was returning from there and whether the engagement was a battle or merely a skirmish. This is an article of an unsatisfactory kind that appears to be created to make use of the battle box template. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim of failed verification is certainly false. The article should be expanded from this book's p.75. desmay (talk) 13:59, 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) 23:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the question is, where was this battle, keep and then change the contact your name in so far as that knowledge becomes clear. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Dear editors, I could not find anything like Battle of Pichuna by reputed historians. The article seems to have misinterpreted the whole context- a peasantry based uprising is shown as some part of series of the fictitious wars between two groups here which wasn't the case in reality. And the claims of the article is doubtful considering no major writer has talked about it. It looks more of an another fringe based article pointing towards some intention of caste glorification by the owner. In my opinion the page is fit for deletion, as it is full of misinformation/misquoting of facts from heading to the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RS6784 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The article needs to be deleted on three points:

1. The title "Battle of Pichuna" is misleading. No reputed writers of Indian history from any school of thoughts has talked about "Battle of Pichuna" and it is not taught in any University of India. A skirmish cannot be overexaggerated as battle and presented on Wikipedia to confuse the readers. I request editors to look into it.

2. This battle is shown here in the article as some part of the series of fictitious wars between two sides. During post Aurangzeb era there were peasantry based revolts. Some exchanges did happened but there were no fixed loyalties.

3. I could only find one Dwivedi and Srivastava talking about a skirmish which resulted in death of one Nilkanth Nagar ( again they have not called it as Battle of Pichuna). No other reputed Historians has talked about any such Battle.

Considering all this fact, I think the article is fit for deletion. A simple description of such an event can be done on Sadaat Khan's page. We don't need a separate page for such skirmishes or military exchange which aren't even talked about by decent numbers of writers.

RS6784 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Removed bold from the word "deleted" and "deletion" in the comment directly above (diff, diff). !Votes are placed in bold, but the nomination itself is considered the official !vote for deletion. Only one !vote is allowed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book The Jats, Their Role in the Mughal Empire does seem to support the claims made in the article. The question of merging isn't an inappropriate one, considering that details are scant, but I don't think the nominator took the best course of action here by claiming everything was false. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This battle occurred and has been given significant coverage in at least this source. However finding a second reference so this can pass WP:GNG has proved tricky. This source says that Nilkanth Nagar was defeated by the Jats in battle but gives no real details of the battle and does not say that Nilkanth Nagar was killed, but presumably this battle is what they are talking about. This source says that Nilkanth Nagar was murdered by the Jats. This source says Nilkanth Nagar was killed fighting the Jats but gives no details. This source gives a detailed description of the battle without mentioning exactly where it was. This source instead describes a rather fanciful story of Nilkanth Nagar's murder by a Jat without mentioning any battle. Whilst the sources are divided on how Nilkanth Nagar met his end, Nilkanth Nagar having fought and lost a battle against the Jats is not incompatible with this murder story and two sources that appear to be reliable ones (though of course if a more modern history is available we should prefer it) describe a battle that matches the one on the page occurring in September 1721 between Jats and forces under Nilkanth Nagar. The title "battle of Pichuna" is a descriptive one as far as I can see.

A merge is not appropriate unless a suitable target is identified, and I don't see one. FOARP (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- FOARP, some of the links like Bingley etc given above are all from the days of British rule ( pre-1947). Now there is rule WP:RAJ made with respect to India. Regarding Jadunath Sarkar, he doesn't call it directly as "Battle of Pichuna". And even no modern historian has talked about a battle named "Battle of Pichuna". Therefore, how does the content of the page becomes fully reliable. We editors cannot directly judge whether a battle happened or not, it is upto writers to decide it. Recent historians have not mentioned about such a battle and this does point to something. I nominated the article for deletion as the title of the same itself is misleading. There is no mention of Battle of Pichuna anywhere in history book. So how can we create one such Battle on Wikipedia. This is not the case like Battle of Panipat, Battle of Tarain etc which are described in history books.

RS6784(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They don't use the specific name "Battle of Pichuna", but that there was a battle in September 1721 near the village of Pichuna is supported by the sources. It is perfectly acceptable to decide a descriptive title to use here on Wikipedia. WP:RAJ is an essay that focuses especially on the issue of caste, and does not exclude using Raj-era history books, just that we should treat them with caution. FOARP (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- FOARP, why not merge it on Sadaat Khan's page. This way the title part becomes redundant. It was Sadaat Khan who was initially tasked to handle the Agra area, only when he was moved against Ajit Singh. The remaining task was given to some Nilkanth Nagar. So, if not delete then it should be merged on Sadaat Khan's page rather than creating a separate page with title - " Battle of Pichuna" which no modern historian mentions in any book.RS6784(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But there are articles for which this battle is equally as, or even more relevant (e.g., Muhkam Singh, Bharatpur, Rajasthan). Sadaat Khan did not personally take part in the battle so his involvement in it is peripheral. Not an obvious merge target. FOARP (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - One battle between Mokham Singh and Nilkanth Nagar did happen, there is no doubt about that. Where did that happen is only supported by one source that History of Jats by Dwivedi, he also only name a village where Nilkanth Nagar raids, doesn't say battle was fought there, rather says it was fought while returning. This book mind you is little biased towards Jats in general and I don't think author wrote any other book. Now about WP:NOTE, this battle is mentioned in two to three lines in every sources mentioned here. So it was not some important battle, and doesn't deserve its separate page. Above that no source give the battle a name, hence it is not regarded that much important by historians as to give it some name. My suggestion is it should be merged with Muhkam Singh.Hiensrt (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hiensrt - The issue you're highlighting here is essentially an article-naming one, right? If the article is kept, would a move to a different title address this? For example, both Jadunath Sakar and Dwivedi state that the battle happened near Fatehpur Sikri, so "Battle at Fatehpur Sikri" or "Battle near Fatehpur Sikri" addresses your concern about accuracy as to where it took place. It is not obvious why this battle (which definitely passes WP:GNG based on those two sources) should be necessarily merged to Muhkam Singh when there are other equally-suitable candidates - indeed that there are multiple candidates points to this being a suitable topic for a stand-alone article. FOARP (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP Not just naming, I also raised point of WP:NOTE. This battle which only mentioned as 2-3 lines in almost every sources we have seen, and not much detail is given in any book is in my opinion not qualified for a separate article. Specially because this battle happened in 18th century and almost every important or semi important battle of that time has been mentioned with vivid details by mamy historians. Merging with Muhkam Singh article will also beef up that article because that article is also a stub. Besides as I pointed out I have doubts about the book by Mr Dwivedi, I have read it a little bit and in my opinion it is biased towards Jat history.Hiensrt (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some more sources to consider:

Uttar Pradesh District Gazetteers: Mathura - Not really significant coverage but describes the battle as happening near a mud fort near Mathura (which sounds like Fatehpur Sikri).
THE FIRST TWO NAWABS OF AWADH - Full page description of the battle, clearly significant coverage, again gives the location of the battle as being at or near Fatehpur Sikri.

On thing the second source makes clear is that this was all part of a wider conflict between the Mughals and the Jats, so does a wider article covering these campaigns exist? That might be a suitable target for a merge. At any rate a change of title is needed as only one source identifies Pichuna as the village that Nilkanth Nagar raided but all that cover the battle agree that his camp was at Fatehpur Sikri and he was ambushed whilst returning there. FOARP (talk) 22:10, 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. There is not consensus to delete the article or anything else other than keep it, though not clear enough to be a consensus, but a default outcome. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Afrikan Black Panther Party[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

All sources given are self-published by the organization or its affiliates. A quick Google search for secondary and tertiary sources only returns one article published by the tabloid The New York Post, while all other secondary/tertiary mentions are by fringe blogs and political websites. CentreLeftRight ✉ 04:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CentreLeftRight ✉ 04:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CentreLeftRight ✉ 04:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is a little bit more out there in reliable sources directly about the group rather than Kevin Rashid Johnson. Journal of African American History, NY Post, PBS. There is material written by members such as on the IWW site] and several articles in San Francisco Bay View. I'm not an expert on this group at all, but I wonder if merge to Kevin Rashid Johnson might work, even though recently he left the group. Much other coverage that mentions the NABPP-PC is actually his journalism and campaigning. Such as The Intercept.OsFish (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added further RS to the article. There's now enough reliable sourcing to pass WP:NONPROFIT. Given Rashid is no longer a member of the organisation I don't think a redirect there is appropriate. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:05, 2 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) 18:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 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 keep. Rationale for keeping has been provided through referencing. Good work, Milowent! Firsfron of Ronchester 22:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bucknum, Wyoming[edit]

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

Searching turns up Mr. Bucknum quite a bit, but otehr than some railroad-related hits and the usual position references, I get nothing that says this was a town. Topos don't go back very far, but a couple of aerials show what looks like a bunch of corrals, later replaced by an industrial concern that grows into the present bentonite mining facility. I don't see that this was ever anything more than a train station. Mangoe (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 10:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of legal recognition so fails WP:GEOLAND #1. Post offices can be literally anywhere (even mobile) and are often co-located in stores/stations, so they are also not a form of legal recognition of a fixed community. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV that could allow it to pass WP:GNG in my WP:BEFORE. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer - we do not simply have articles for every populated place on the planet regardless of notability. FOARP (talk) 08:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing a lot of homesteads in old newspapers, for instance [32], so this does seem to be a community at least at one time, albeit a predominantly rural one. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No source describes Bucknum as a community. No legal recognition, no SIGCOV that would meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 20:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I improved the article. It was a small community but it was a community for a few decades. It is about 24km (15 miles) from the westernmost suburbs of Casper today, so with modern cars, etc., just like many other communities like this, there was no need for it to exist on its own anymore.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further analysis, as the article has been exponentially expanded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as improved. BD2412 T 06:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after Wikipedia:HEY Djflem (talk) 14:55, 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 merge to Hand Eye Society. ✗plicit 06:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Torontron[edit]

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

It had its 15 minutes of "fame" as part of an Art Gallery of Ontario exhibit.[33] That's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hand Eye Society. While it has examples of reliable source coverage: [34] [35] [36] I believe it's a bit sparse and could use a section in the parent article of the group that created it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zxcvbnm. WP:ATD-R. czar 16:33, 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 06:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Queens rape[edit]

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

This article as it presently stands represents an extraordinary failure of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. It was written by E.M.Gregory, who, in March 2019, just a month after this article was written, was "indefinitely topic banned from pages and content related to illegal immigration, immigration policy, and the relationship between crime and immigration" (see [37]). He was subsequently indeffed for sockpuppeting to attempt to evade this ban. Even without knowing the background, it's clear from the writing style that the author had an agenda about illegal immigration, considering it's the second thing mentioned in the lead, and the editorialization of the crime in Wikipedia's voice.

The sourcing is similarly atrocious, and I do not believe it supports an argument to notability under WP:NEVENT. The citations to the New York Post can't support notability as the source is deprecated. The Gougherty, Buchanan, and City Journal sources are trivial mentions and not WP:SIGCOV of the crime. New York Daily News, Queens Chronicle and Queens Gazette are all local news, so they don't provide any indication that the crime meets the NEVENT requirement that the event "affects a major geographical scope".

The Impact section is problematic as it makes the case that the rape was a direct cause of Bloomberg issuing the new immigration-status-related executive orders, but that isn't borne out by the sources when you actually read them. At best, you can see in the Queens Gazette and Times Ledger sources that Senator Frank Padavan claims that Bloomberg's changes were the result of this crime, but there's nothing that actually substantiates that. One man making an unsubstantiated claim about another man's motives does not, to me, indicate the kind of "lasting major consequences" required by NEVENT.

The remaining sources, Wilson's NYT article and the unbylined WaPo article, are reliable and significant, but both came out in the immediate aftermath of the crime, so they don't meet the requirement for "significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the strongest prejudice possible. E.M.'s only purpose here was to create biased articles that checked their boxes against their pet topic of anti-illegal immigration sentiment and using any urban crime committed by one to push their narrative, especially if it was lurid, violent, and stomach-turning. This reads as absolute trash you'd expect to find in The Illustrated Police News, and neutralizing it is completely impossible. And their creation rationale that it was 'ongoing in-depth' when it happened seventeen years ago should've warranted an immediate ban from creating new articles. Nate • (chatter) 04:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This article is poorly written, but the subject is undoubtedly notable and there should be an article on it. This crime was arguably the most significant non-terrorism crime in New York City since the Central Park jogger case. Indeed, it received extensive coverage in NYC and national media and countless parallels were drawn between the Central Park case and this one. Just like any article with POV issues, it is hardly beyond repair. There is some good content in here and a lot of bad content. Rather than be deleted, it should be cleaned up. In fact, I would like to work on cleaning it up in the near future. Ergo Sum 04:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you link to some of that coverage from sometime after the event? I did a nyt-specific search and a google search and found only case updates/brief mentions like this. It's possible my google skills are lacking in this case, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (edit conflict) even if it were notable, it probably merits a WP:TNT. I don't miss the EM Gregory style of POV crime article, and there are a lot of terrible sources here (this is right up the NY Post's alley, of course, which doesn't miss an opportunity to characterize NYC as a dangerous crime wasteland where ["thugs"/homeless] prey on the innocent and [police/politicians] do nothing). But beyond the TNT, PMC has a point about notability. Beyond the coverage at the time of the event, there doesn't seem to be much with more than a brief mention thereafter (lasting significance), apart from typical follow up about the court case. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Second Rhododendrites' analysis. A tragic event to be sure, but written purely as inflammatory POV garbage sourced mostly to tabloids. WP:TNT for sure, though perhaps it's possible that GNG could be satisfed for recreation. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:PERSISTENCE. The block and punishment history of the article creator is something of a red herring, as this article is not a product of ban evasion and the POV of the editor is irrelevant. I don't find the writing of the article to be problematic. I am more concerned with this not being of sufficiently lasting significance.. That appears to be the case, at least as the article is currently framed. Coretheapple (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article as it is now is absolutely WP:POV and WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. I did a WP:BEFORE search and found this primary court case^[1], and that was about it, besides for the other mentioned low quality sources. So fails WP:SIGCOV and violates WP:NOTNEWS ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Jane Doe v. New York, 19 Misc. 3d 936 | Casetext Search + Citator". casetext.com. Retrieved 2021-11-19.

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 06:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wildcat, Wyoming[edit]

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

Searching for this was particularly painful, especially with Wyoming Wildcat to generate more hits. But the only reference I could find suggesting this was a town was a very passing reference to it as a settlement. I don't see that as enough. Mangoe (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNIS spam, per my response at Teckla, Wyoming. FOARP (talk) 09:15, 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. ✗plicit 03:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Weaver[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim here is winning awards that aren't prominent enough to pass NMUSIC #8, and are "referenced" solely to those awards' own self-published websites about themselves rather than any evidence that they get enough media coverage to confer notability on their winners -- and besides that, the only other source here (now deadlinked) was her own self-published PR on the website of her own record label, and even on a ProQuest search for older coverage I just get a small handful of glancing namechecks of her existence in sources that aren't about her in any non-trivial way, with absolutely nothing substantive enough to count toward getting her over WP:GNG. Note also that I'm bundling her album, which is also an entirely primary-sourced article that fails to even provide a track listing. Absolutely nothing stated in either article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, sparse coverage and does not meet any notability criteria. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON for this singer to have her own article. I could not find any reliable secondary sourcing that helps her qualify for WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 20:46, 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 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 03:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wave Radio (internet)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a shortlived internet radio station. Note that internet radio streams do not get an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA just because they (purportedly) existed -- to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, it would have to show a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about it in media independent of itself, in order to establish its enduring significance -- but this has been tagged for lacking sources since 2010, without ever having any new sources added to bolster its notability. As I don't have access to any database in which I could forage for archived US media coverage about something that went belly-up 17 years ago, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find more solid sourcing to salvage this with -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to pass GNG on the referencing. Bearcat (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage was found from searching Google or NewsBank or Proquest's databases.--Tdl1060 (talk) 08:49, 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. ✗plicit 03:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ingeborg de Beausacq[edit]

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

This article is extremely subjective and the facts have been challenged on the talk page. It's had tags about tone and verifiability since 2012. It appears to have been made following interviews with the subject herself. I tried searching for further information on her, and Google exclusively returns sites that have copied the text of this WP entry and a single self-published book from lulu.com, "The Singular Life of Countess Ingeborg de Beausacq". A search of my academic library results only in a few photo captions from magazines in the 1950s.

The subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:RS. I suspect the article itself might have been written by the author of the self-published book. asilvering (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Artist fails WP:NARTIST. I can't find any references online except the self-published book mentioned by the nominator. All the tagged issues are valid and date back to 2012. Issues on the talk page date back to 2008. The original editor has made few edits outside this article and has made no attempt to bring the article up to encyclopedic standards. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless reliable sources can be found, this is nothing more than a hagiographic essay essentially based on a single non-reliable source about a subject who ultimately does not appear to meet notability criteria. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:32, 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 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 03:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Lockwood[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:AUTOBIO of an actress and musician, with no reliably sourced claim to passing either WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSIC. The notability claims here are a public access television sketch show and a supporting role in a film, neither of which are instant notability freebies in the absence of media coverage to establish the significance of the roles -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, with not even one WP:GNG-worthy source shown. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 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 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 03:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hondor[edit]

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

Subject of the article does not meet notability guidelines. As an athlete, subject did not compete in the Olympics or World Championships and was not National champion^[1]. The article cites sources that are either essentially local press releases for his business or one article in Romanian that does not mention the subject at all. At least one major contributor to the article was an undisclosed paid editor. Delete Full disclosure: I know the subject in real life.Hprovenza (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://frscrima.ro/istoria-scrimei/campionii-nationali/

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then it seems. UPE creation. scope_creep^Talk 12:46, 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 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 03:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Morelli[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician (likely WP:AUTOBIO, if you compare the creator's username to the topic's name and date of birth) of a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim here is that she was nominated for minor regional music awards that don't satisfy WP:NMUSIC #8 (which is looking for awards on the order of the Junos or the Grammys, not just any small-fry music award that exists). This is referenced 50 per cent to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and fifty per cent to a tiny smattering of coverage in community hyperlocals which aren't widely distributed enough to get her over WP:GNG all by themselves if they're the best she can do. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform for aspiring future stars to advertise themselves -- she needs to accomplish something a lot more significant, and have a lot more sourcing than this to show for it, before she's a suitable Wikipedia article topic. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I failed to find any reliable secondary sources with WP:SIGCOV that helps this subject meet our WP:GNG outside of concert and theater announcements. Missvain (talk) 20:52, 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 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 03:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Kerbrat[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician with no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:NMUSIC. This waves its hand in the direction of criterion #4 (touring), but the test there isn't just saying the musician toured, but showing that the musician received substantive coverage about the tour (such as concert reviews) in sources independent of himself -- and I've been utterly unable to verify the tour anywhere else either, as his name gets just three hits total in a ProQuest search and they're all event calendar listings in his hometown newspaper. This is not referenced to any other evidence of media coverage at all -- it's 4/5 primary sources and 1/5 an alt-weekly newspaper, and even that isn't linking to an actual article about Jake Kerbrat but merely to the publication's front splash page. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this, but as I already noted I can't find scratch. Bearcat (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:22, 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. ✗plicit 01:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR.COM's Post-Race Show[edit]

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

I couldn't even find a reliable mention of this web series. I could only find a blank IMDb page and a Wikipedia reprint. I'm not sure if this was even a thing. SL93 (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short-lived experimental webshow which was just like the post-race show on the networks NASCAR races on. Nate • (chatter) 04:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:TVSHOW. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable TV show. Mann Mann (talk) 16:23, 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 merge to The Dissociatives. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Can't Believe It's Not Rock[edit]

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

I was unable to find any significant coverage for this album. SL93 (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a one-time vanity project by two otherwise notable musicians, and it is only ever mentioned briefly as a tidbit in each of their biographies. The album itself received no notice in its own right, and can only be seen in the usual retail and streaming services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up Comment - At the time of my first vote above, I was unaware that the two musicians later formed The Dissociatives, so the recommendations below to merge to that band's article are valid. A simple redirect is also valid because this album still has no notability in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to The Dissociatives. I've expanded the article and provided references for this release, I believe it is sufficient to verify notability. However, if not kept it should be merged to the Dissociatives (same band members) as an alternative to deletion. That article already describes the fore-runner duo and this release.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Dissociatives. Shaidar cuebiyar has done some good detective work here, but at the end of the day, it still doesn't say anything much more than the duo recorded five songs for fun at home, and then decided to release them – there's no in-depth description of the recording process, what the songs sound like, reviews of the EP, etc. I definitely think this would be better included as a short paragraph at the Dissociatives' article, which would then give some useful background and context as to how that band started. Richard3120 (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Dissociatives. Still fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond The Post. SBKSPP (talk) 06:35, 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. WP:SNOW keep, withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bert and Bertie[edit]

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

Failed WP:SIGCOV References are generally primary, routine announcements for directors who have been in the mainstream for a year. scope_creep^Talk 01:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met by references 2 and 3. Some of the others are as characterized by the nom, but GNG is met regardless. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 2 is a profile and is on one those clickbait x of y sites, that are used to drive adrvertising. It is a short profile. The 3rd reference is the only reference on that page. scope_creep^Talk 12:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 2 is from Variety, which is a reliable source as per WP:VARIETY NHCLS (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think WP:GNG is met well enough for notability. I can also find a couple more sources that don't seem to have been used in the article, like In The Studio: Bert And Bertie, Preston Waters makes a splash with ‘Lucidity’, and Hawkeye Directors on Breaking the Marvel Mold With Barton and Bishop's Buddy-Cop Comedy. NHCLS (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of sources don't seem to bother you. That first one is an annoucement and is not independent. The 2nd one Bertie, part of directing duo Bert and Bertie, told GamesRadar+ isn't independent either, it is part interview, all indicative of an very early careers. They are either reported in new annoucements of work, or connected to somebody else's context. They're isn't more than 1 secondary source here. That is the whole point of the Afd. scope_creep^Talk 14:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The two sources from WP:VARIETY and one from WP:THR meet the standard of WP:GNG. These are industry magazines for the industry they work in, so clearly they are considered notable in their own business. --Krelnik (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Welll I've done my bit for Blighty. I thought it was far too sono since they have been in the mainstream for less than a year and done sweet FA. How notability standards have dropped. Nomination Withdrawn. scope_creep^Talk 21:00, 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. Participants concluded that the reviews of this hotel are insufficient to confer notability. ✗plicit 01:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Runnymede Hotel[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Coverage I found is mainly about a hotel with the same name in Malaysia. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hotel served as expected as a hotel. Nothing notable here. BD2412 T 02:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reviews show notability. The article should be moved to The Runnymede on Thames. Recent reviews use the new name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hotel reviews in hotel industry publications or travel guides that provide reviews of numerous run-of-the-mill hotels should be given exceedingly sparse weight. BD2412 T 06:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a hotel that exists, and possibly a decent one to stay at, but nothing really notable. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reviews and profiles are part and parcel for the hotel industry, without which most wouldn't survive. There's nothing to suggest this place is actually notable and not just a nice hotel. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 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 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 03:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Days Hotel, Belfast[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Could not find significant coverage except routine local press mentioning a name change. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not see how any applicable notability criteria apply. In terms of WP:COMPANY, it is unclear how this business is any more notable than any other (certainly I can find no coverage to the extent CORPDEPTH is met). In terms of WP:NBUILDING, it is unclear how this 2003 building is any more notable than its neighbours (being the "largest hotel in the area" isn't the type of "social, economic, or architectural importance" expected under GEOFEAT; And it couldn't be less architecturally bland/irrelevant if it tried. I mean, it's just an early 2000s generic hotel/Holiday Inn building). In terms of WP:SIGCOV, the only coverage I can find is this type of thing (Belfast Telegraph, 2015, "Belfast Days Hotel now a Holiday Inn after £2.5m investment"), which is a form of routine coverage that pretty much any hotel or business might expect. And is hardly indepth coverage. Merging and redirecting (to where, Holiday Inn?) seems pointless. Just delete. Guliolopez (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 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. ✗plicit 01:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Russel U-18 Gold Cup[edit]

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

Similar to the dscussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BFSF U-14 Academy Cup. Non-notable tournament RedPatch (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another non notable youth tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete non notable and the page isnt even written well seems to be by a non natural speaker.Muur (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:26, 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. ✗plicit 01:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 Sheikh Russel U-18 Gold Cup[edit]

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

Similar to the dscussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BFSF U-14 Academy Cup. Non-notable tournament RedPatch (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete - not notable Muur (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —MdsShakil (talk) 09:27, 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 01:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Wyrick[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) 00:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails wP:GNG (no post-high school SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources), WP:NGRIDIRON (no pro play), and WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards, records). Note that the article was also created by a special purpose account for which the only history is creating and editing an article on this podcaster. Cbl62 (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The best I found is hyper-local coverage of him while in high school. E.g, this and this. I discount this high school coverage per WP:NHSPHSATH. Cbl62 (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find the coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG or any other notability mark. The sources presented don't seem (to me) to surpass the third party standard.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:43, 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 01:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transzap[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. All sources I could find are either connected to Transzap itself or trivial mentions specifically excluded by NCORP as a factor in notability (e.g. the Fast 500 lists). – Teratix ₵ 00:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 00:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 00:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 00:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. All I could find were a 2003 wanted ad and a mention of the merge with Enverus. Any other information comes from primary sources or brief profiles such as this one. All of the March 2011 sources on the page either generate a 404 error or do not load. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed, not every "three kids and an app" is notable. The current article seems from a burst in 2011 by single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Cogolfcritic who did no more edits in the past ten years. This one was never updated about its apparent demise in 2018. More circumstantial evidence is the use of marketing language like "solutions", being founded by "veterans", buzzwords like "EPayables", etc. and the use of non-USA day-month-year dates for a subject based in the USA. Perhaps a combined article on this company, its "Olidex" and "Drillinginfo" brands, and the resulting parent company, but see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enverus which discussed another fishy article from 2019. Also seems to now be owned by Hellman & Friedman so if anything, might get a mention there at most. W Nowicki (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage to pass WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 02:33, 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 merge to Zinedine Zidane. Consensus that this list should be integrated into the main article about the footballer. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Zinedine Zidane[edit]

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

Unnecessary content fork. If I remember correctly, lists of international goals were only made for top scorers of national teams. Zidane has never been the top scorer in the history of the France national team. Also, there isn't that much prose on this article that would warrant keeping it as a standalone article. There is just a small overview paragraph, the goals chart, and a statistic section already in the Zinedine Zidane main article. Note: this article was nominated for deletion in 2016 as part of a bigger deletion, but was kept on rather controversial grounds IMO. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: note that the list for the list for the Brazilian Ronaldo was merged back in December 2020 on the grounds that he is/was not Brazil's top scorer, just like several other examples. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into main article. Giant Snowman 10:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into main article. He's not the country's top scorer, and so doesn't need a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not the top scorer of his country, per above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - never been anywhere near being his country's top scorer, so precedent is not to have a separate article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zinedine Zidane main article is already 179kB way over the 100kB. @GiantSnowman:, @Joseph2302:, @ArsenalGhanaPartey:, @ChrisTheDude:. Do you guys not care for WP:AS guideline? Govvy (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't warrant a separate article, so should be selectively merged back i.e. without all the detail. The fact the existing article is bloated is not a reason to create this separate list against WP:FOOTY standards for stand-alone lists. Unbloat the main article some other way. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:37, 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. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Restaurant Group[edit]

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

This does not seem to be a particularly notable company. If this company ever had coverage it appears to have link-rotted away. Salimfadhley (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it should be noted that a predecessor of this article had a deletion discussion in 2009 at WP:Articles for deletion/Villa Enterprises. I've asked a recent COI contributor to consider expending the effort to improve the article, but they seemed rather discouraged at IRC #wikipedia-en-help about how hard it was to make changes. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's the previous deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villa Enterprises. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Should have multiple reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth. Does not meet criteria for WP:GNG. Multi7001 (talk) 04:21, 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, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. No claims under any notability guideline. Ifnord (talk) 17:17, 26 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 draftify. See Draft:Raghu Dakat. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raghu Dakat[edit]

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

The article is failing WP:NFF. No release date announcement and shooting didn't started. WP:TOOSOON Sgloves (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sgloves (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at the moment. Can become notable in future. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: There are news articles about the upcoming movie from last few days. It will probably release in next few months. Moving to draft is the right thing to do at this time. If it does not get released or fails to gain notability then the draft can be deleted. Venkat TL (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. It fails to report on principal photography. WP:TOOSOON. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as it is too early for this film but it may gain significant coverage in due course nearer to its release date or following it, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 03:32, 25 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 03:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pangea Translation Services[edit]

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

This article concerns a translation company located in Cyprus. No sources appear to exist that would demonstrate that this company meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. I initially PROD'd article but the creator contested the PROD after adding a reference to a press release issued by the company, which is not an independent or reliable secondary source. So now I am bringing this to AFD. DocFreeman24 (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references are all PR and spam. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. Sources are mostly non reliable. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 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. ✗plicit 03:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents/prime ministers by longevity (batch nomination)[edit]

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

Trivial cross-categorisations ("age at death" and "former political office holder") which are also statistical trivia and which typically fail to cite a single source, thus not meeting either of WP:V or WP:LISTN, and violating WP:OR. Just a massive collection of WP:TRIVIA (one article has a Presidents by age group (Septuagenarian, Quinquagenarian, Quadragenarian etc.) table and chart...) only some of which is: ages and lengths of time repeatedly given in years and days; many further calculate how many xx,xxx thousands of days someone was/is alive or retired; some have a section for the apparently Wikipedia editor created title "oldest living leader of x" over time. The relevant parent lists are of a vastly higher quality and are all Wikipedia needs.

Follows recent precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chancellors of Germany by age, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian presidents by longevity, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German presidents by longevity; and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heads of state of Bulgaria by longevity. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The List of prime ministers of the Netherlands by age page has a table that displays the PM by time in office. Not sure why exactly its in this article but I think this table in particular should be kept somewhere in line with recent precedents. Superegz (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Superegz The article List of prime ministers of the Netherlands already has that sortable column, it's just only in days, not years and days like here. Nothing will be lost if this article is deleted, and the other article can be easily altered to display time in office in years and days format if that is what you prefer. I hope that satisfies your concern. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No not really, for the same reasons that we debated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian prime ministers by political affiliation a couple of weeks ago. Once again you and Vladimir.copic are trying to turn 2 tables that are displaying different types of information into one and it simply doesn't work. Superegz (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content forks of their respective "List of presidents/prime ministers of X" pages. Unnecessary listcruft. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing issue is easily resolved because a head of state/government's birthdates, death dates, and terms of office are easily sourced. The discussion of a head of state/government's age is frequently discussed in the press. I turn to the arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age, particularly those by SSSB. OCNative (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per precedent in several recent discussions. Longevity and career is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Also WP:NOTSTATS. pburka (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent, more WP:NOTSTATS WP:CONTENTFORK longevity trivia junk. Dronebogus (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent and WP:SNOW flurries. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOSTATS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Avilich (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – Again, all these are indiscriminate lists, with trivia information, failing WP:NOTSTATS and WP:CONTENTFORK guidelines. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any group of people can theoretically be listed by any number of parameters. However, most of those combinations of groups and parameters constitute WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. In order for such a list to make for a valid stand-alone article, there needs to be a good reason why that particular group should be listed by that particular parameter. Otherwise, WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. In this case, it has not been demonstrated that there is a good reason to list these groups by this parameter. TompaDompa (talk) 17:28, 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. Despite the additional references provided in this discussion, it was determined that they do not meet the standard of significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject needed to establish notability. ✗plicit 03:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Brzezinski[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not all automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test is not "person who has a job", but "person whose work in their job has been externally validated as significant by independent third party sources". But of the just four distinct footnotes being cited here (one of which is redundantly reduplicated five times for the deceptive appearance of nine footnotes), three are her own staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers, which are not support for notability, and the last is a blog entry covering her not in the context of any potential notability claims as a journalist, but solely in the context of her wedding -- which means that absolutely none of the footnotes actually represent proper support for her notability as a journalist, because the only one that's independent of her is about her personal life rather than her work.
This was created in September, then moved to draftspace the next day on the grounds that it wasn't adequately sourced, but then was arbitrarily moved back to mainspace yesterday by a relatively new editor with a claim that she "meets GNG" without actually showing any GNG-worthy sources (which, again, absolutely none of the footnotes currently shown here are) to substantiate that she would meet GNG. So the sourcing here isn't cutting it at all, but since it's already been move-warred over I don't see the value in just redraftifying it again. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appears to be insufficient support for WP:JOURNALIST or WP:BASIC notability based on the sources in the article and what I have been able to find, e.g. 2017 mention with context (Metro), 2017 mention of her Instagram post (AFP/Hindustan Times), 2019 interview about the Brilliant Minds Foundation (Morning Joe/MSNBC), 2020 mention of her and the Brilliant Minds Foundation with context (Guardian). Beccaynr (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can find more sources than what Beccaynr has already found, especially in Swedish-language sources. There's a profile of her on VisitSweden.se, Techambassadören ser framtiden i Sverige, Har lockat hit eliten: ”Sverige är framtiden”, Natalia Brzezinski: "Det värmer mitt hjärta", Natalia Brzezinski, Tech-Savvy And Gen Y, Breaks The Mold For Ambassadors' Wives, Hon drev Daniel Eks elitkonferens i Stockholm – blir Klarnas strategichef i USA, Natalia Brzezinski sätter Sverige och Brilliant Minds på världskartan, »Jag har alltid blivit hårt pushad«, "I Sverige har jag lärt mig att kvinnor kan få allt", Natalia Brzezinski, '06 , Tech-pionjären Natalia Brzezinski, Hemlig konferens med toppnamn på deltagarlistan, Brzezinski: ”Trumps twittrande ett nytt lågvattenmärke”, Diplomatiskt spel banade vägen, etc... NHCLS (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of my analysis of non-English sources is based on translation with Google Translate.

The 2020 Visit Sweden source reads like an advertisement (e.g. "Between 2011 and 2014 Natalia lived in Sweden and gained a Swedish perspective on nature") and is mostly based on her statements, so I am concerned about the independence of the source due to the publisher and the content.
The 2016 Techambassadören ser framtiden i Sverige (Dina Pengar) source does not appear to have WP:SECONDARY context beyond introducing as "the American tech ambassador" and "No wonder Spotify founder Daniel Ek and Avicii manager Ash Pournouri made her CEO of the joint creativity event "Symposium" in Stockholm" because the article is based on "a long interview with Dina Pengar, Brzezinski talks about the work of raising Swedish values in the world and how Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton helped her along the way."
The 2019 Har lockat hit eliten: ”Sverige är framtiden” (Dina Pengar) source, reads a bit like celebrity gossip, (e.g. commentary includes, "She seems to have made some powerful friends in Sweden.") and is mostly based on her statements, (e.g. "According to Natalia Brzezinski, the fact that the event is closed to the press is to create a place where change can take place.").
In the 2019 Natalia Brzezinski: "Det värmer mitt hjärta" (Expressen, the parent company of Dina Pengar) source, this appears to be a video interview titled (translated) "The CEO of Brilliant Minds is pleased with the conference."
Natalia Brzezinski, Tech-Savvy And Gen Y, Breaks The Mold For Ambassadors' Wives (HuffPost, 2012) includes some biographical information but is mostly based on her statements, e.g. ("To accomplish her goals, Brzezinski intends to expand well beyond the traditional diplomatic spousal role of being a hostess and take a more hands-on and proactive approach. This includes blogging, Tweeting from her personal handle, @natalbrz, and posting photos from her travels on Facebook.")
The 2020 Hon drev Daniel Eks elitkonferens i Stockholm – blir Klarnas strategichef i USA (Di Digital, "your guide to digital business and tech from a Swedish perspective.") source includes biographical and career details but offers no WP:SECONDARY commentary.
The 2016 Natalia Brzezinski sätter Sverige och Brilliant Minds på världskartan (Breakit) source is an interview, with commentary, (e.g. "For those who are involved in the digital media world, or have visited one of the major tech events in Stockholm in recent years, Natalia Brzezinski is a familiar face and name.").
The 2014 »Jag har alltid blivit hårt pushad« (Fokus) source is an interview, with a translated title "I have always been pushed hard" and statements including "Symposium is not for marketing Spotify or any other partners. No one comes to tell about their new book. We just want to raise important issues and possibly Sweden as a country, she says."
The 2013 Natalia Brzezinski, '06 (University of Richmond) source is an alumni magazine, so not independent.
The 2017 Tech-pionjären Natalia Brzezinski (PLAZA) source is in Pressreader, and I haven't been able to copy and paste the text into Google Translate, but it appears to be a fashion magazine.
The 2019 Hemlig konferens med toppnamn på deltagarlistan (Sveriges Radio) source is another interview with her, related to "The Brilliant Minds Foundation is holding a star-studded conference in Stockholm this week."
I don't have full access to the 2017 Brzezinski: ”Trumps twittrande ett nytt lågvattenmärke” (Dagens Nyheter) source, but it appears to be a report on her response to Trump writing tweets about Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough.
I similarly have limited access to the 2011 Diplomatiskt spel banade vägen (Dagens Nyheter) source, but it is filed in the sports section, with a translated title "Diplomatic play paved the way" and includes, "The American ambassador's wife wondered if Stockholm Ice had room for a figure skater she knew.")

I think there is a need for more independent and WP:SECONDARY coverage to support WP:BASIC notability, because with so many sources focused on the promotion of the conference and her business, there appears to be a risk of becoming an extension of marketing efforts. Beccaynr (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC) - comment reformatted Beccaynr (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and source analysis by Beccaynr. This is a clear case of non-notable journalist covered in routine news stories. 167.98.47.71 (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Routine journalism work and she's not being cited as a subject matter expert or nor has she published any groundbreaking or game changing work that would make her stand out from the rest. Missvain (talk) 20:54, 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. ✗plicit 03:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless (band)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original reason was: No significant coverage. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Reason still holds. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:21, 3 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) 19:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:51, 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. No convinced that the subject meets WP:GNG.

For future reference, WP:BLP1E is not for dead people.

Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith on this decision. If you disagree and wish to discuss this further, please take it to Deletion Review. Happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Deal[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP1E, person's tragic death nevertheless only received coverage for a very short period of time, and he has received no coverage for any other reason. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article's talk page contains claims that there is still some interest in the death and apparently contradictory information about it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The President expressed condolences. One of his biggest supporters spread conspiracy theories about the death. This doesn't seem like your routine obituaries. The right approach might be to move it to "Death of Harrison Deal" and see if that story meets notability guidelines. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO. Not a notable political advisor, and death coverage does not confer notability. KidAd • SPEAK 19:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How exactly can an article about a dead person fail WP:BLP1E? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notwithstanding the quackery about the conspiracy theory which seems to be pushed by a sole editor agitating on the talk page (and tried this nonsense on Jeffrey Dahmer; this new infobox in their userspace suggests they're definitely WP:NOTHERE any longer), the subject did nothing at all which warrants an article. This is a WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTMEMORIAL case. I also have concerns about the mention of the suspect in the article when they're still awaiting trial for what seems to be a tragic accident. Nate • (chatter) 04:37, 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.