The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kahlbaugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional article on a non notable business man who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Notability isn’t inherited by proximity to “what may be notable” hence being “general counsel” for a publicly traded company doesn’t confer notability. A before search leads me user generated unreliable sources Celestina007 (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject has a job. There's not much beyond that. Coverage mentions him in relation to the company, but it isn't in-depth or significant or focused on him. --Kbabej (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm in agreement with Kbabej. Here's the Google news search. It's about the companies he works for, not him. As it stands, a failure of WP:NBIO threshold. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete coverage is about his firm not him fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:19, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Tjendri-Liew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

BLP does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is inherited from the Bengawan Solo bakery. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article topic is covered by an article on Singapore's National Library Board's infopedia (note this is not a wiki despite the pedia name but written by staff writers of the Board), covered by South China Morning Post in a video which talks about her in the first half, SCMP video reposted by Singapore's Asiaone here, inducted into Singapore Women's Hall of Fame which is covered by article here, awarded 2 nationals awards, the Public Service Award and Public Service Star (respectively the 3rd lowest and the middle of the Singaporean orders and decorations) partially covered by archive photo. In the infopedia article, there are other news sources covering her and her work in Bengawan Solo but the news articles are only available for view (in microfilm print) in Singapore's library. Article topic is famous for her work in founding of Bengawan Solo but since that is the reason for this AFD, there are enough sources to pass GNG. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Justanothersgwikieditor. The article can be expanded further, same goes for the Bangawan Solo article (someone else will have to visit the public libraries for the locked sources though as I am under quarantine at the moment). – robertsky (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because the person passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG. English language sources include two sources from infopedia here and here, Straits Times, BK Magazine, Zula, AsiaOne, The New Savvy, Akurat, and the fact the primary sources indicating that she was inducted into the Singapore Women's Hall of Fame here and here. There are probably also sources in non-english and non-digital publications as well. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:13, 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia DeLuca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable real estate agent lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 17:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete This reads like a WP:AUTOBIO, fails gng,and may be attempting to sell her books. Hyperwave11 (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An autobio sourced to Zillow, blogs, and her website. Does not pass notability requirements. --Kbabej (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Yes it reads like a autobiography....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom--Devokewater ^(talk) 02:51, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Kirk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable Youtuber. A one-off appearance on CNN or Joe Rogan does not make someone notable. The majority of sourcing seem to be social media or passing mentions. Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:ENT. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have one source here [1] that can be found in the article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found another one here [2]. This is definitely more than a trivial mention. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He is very notable and influential in the YouTube community. Songwaters (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: From the article he has non-trivial mentions in Wired, Der Spiegel, The Daily Dot, CNET, The Hollywood Reporter and LGBTQ Nation (although I'm not 100% sure on the quality of that last site, haven't seen it before). There is also discussion of Yiannopoulos' comments on the Drunken Peasants podcast by The Huffington Post and the New York Daily News, and Kirk has appeared on CNN. Seems like there is persistent, non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It appears that Alduin2000 found more sources. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:39, 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 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, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Get Thrashed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG — 07 ● 💬 15:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slap City (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article has barely any content and virtually no sources. This same user attempted to create the same article previously, which was deemed incomplete and moved to a draft space back in July; the user has not done any of the recommended work and has instead recreated the article with no changes from the draft. Suggest deleting the article once more until the original concerns are actually addressed. Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was surprised to not find significant coverage of this game, especially after the developers went on to release Nickelodeon All-Star Brawl, but it doesn't look like it got any reviews from the usual major outlets. It's been included in a couple list articles [3] [4] but no full reviews from reliable sources. Ultimately fails GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Coverage in ShackNews and Rock Paper Shotgun, both of which are considered reliable at WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources. I also found a review at a site which isn't mentioned on that page. Mlb96 (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those two are good, but they should be added to the existing draft first. And I've never heard of PixelDie, but no other articles on Wikipedia cite it, and I don't think it would pass as a reliable source under WP:VG/RS, so I don't think it can be used. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't actually have to be in the article to count towards notability; see WP:NEXIST. Mlb96 (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But two sources aren't nearly enough, and that doesn't address the fact that the article as it stands now is virtually empty. Hence why I still maintain the article should be deleted and the draft it was copied from be continually improved upon until it's actually ready. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails the Metacritic test, and the sources brought forward do not indicate WP:SIGCOV. This is undoubtedly a non-notable game unless better quality sources, such as reviews from reliable outlets, can be found._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you care to explain how the sources I posted don't meet WP:SIGCOV instead of just making a vague wave towards the policy? Mlb96 (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, the snippiness is not appreciated since the WP:BURDEN is to provide proof of notability, not to point out the lack of it. However, that said, the ShackNews article is not an analysis of the game, just an announcement post for a streamed demonstration of the game, so it doesn't count at all. The Rock, Paper, Shotgun article is also a fairly short announcement post that the game exists. It has a slight amount of analysis, calling it "small but respectable", but doesn't ascend to the level of WP:SIGCOV. And the review is not from a reliable source, the writing style is clearly amateurish and I have doubts if it went through the editorial process. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Not entirely sure which part of my post was "snippy," but I appreciate the response. Mlb96 (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "Would you care to explain" sounds accusatory. "If you wouldn't mind, could you explain" or "If possible, could you explain" would be more polite. Similarly, claiming I am making a "vague wave" is suggesting some level of bad faith editing (or at least lazy editing) on my part. (Not to mention I didn't "just" point to the policy - I did give an explanation of why - that it needs more reliable sources.) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking significant coverage. I'm honestly surprised that there is no buzz around this game at all, but going through sources only shows the smallest of news snippets, such as the early access release and a stream announcement on Shacknews. Mlb96 already found both of these sources above. I found nothing else; not a single review in a reliable outlet ("Pixeldie" is not reliable in this instance). IceWelder [✉] 08:40, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salam for Democracy and Human Rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NORG, lacks reliable sources Aoyoigian (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Aoyoigian (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ORG. Media coverage has the organisation making comments in the media, rather than being the subject of coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Trivial mentions are not enough. SL93 (talk) 17:02, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Project 18-class destroyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

At first sight the article seems legit, with sources and all, but neither of the sources says what the article claims they say, i e everything in the article fails verification, and the legitimate sounding "Indian Defence Research Wing" that is used as source for everything technical in the article turns out to be a private website hosted by GoDaddy, the article used as source isn't a real article but someone's personal opinion that the website expressly doesn't take any responsibility for, and even that post doesn't say anything even remotely similar to what the article creator claims it says. So some random dude posted a personal opinion on a reliable seeming but decidedly not RS website (an RS website on the subject would have a "gov.in" address, and wouldn't be hosted by GoDaddy), and a random WP editor then adds a lot of fantasy stuff to the post and creates an article here about a class of super-duper Indian warships that don't exist. If something comes out of the project, and a reliable source can be found, a new article can be created, but this one belongs in the trash bin. Drachentöter001 (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This might be something made up on reddit? Even assuming the best, it's WP:TOOSOON Hemanthah (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The creator has removed the most blatant fantasies from the "article" but everything that is left is still either completely unsourced or failed verification. Drachentöter001 (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG, it may become a thing but for now its WP:TOOSOON. Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing GNG on grounds of lack of reliable sources and coverage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:47, 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 Trackless train. Closing given the fact the article creator redirected the article to the article suggested here.

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) 21:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mall train (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is a WP:SPAMPAGE and the subject is already covered at Trackless train SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Trackless train. There's nothing of value to be merged that isn't already covered at the latter article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Trackless train. last time I saw this article was in draftspace, I have no idea how it got moved to the article namespace, especially since I don't remember submitting it for approval. Either way, I found out about Trackless train midway through and abandoned it. (I didn't know how to nominate it for speedy deletion at the time). As for the promotional content, I was pretty new when I made it and couldn't find any sources, so I did a quick search and nabbed the first one I saw. It's definitely not worth keeping. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 16:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per creator of the article above. NemesisAT (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Someone appears to have prematurely redirected the page to Trackless train. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 22:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that 'someone' was the article's creator. Since the creator redirected and gave his input here, this discussion should be closed. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 22:39, 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 Hills Football League. Daniel (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ironbank-Cherry Gardens Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Local village football team that plays against other village teams in the region. Represents the villages of Ironbank, South Australia and Cherry Gardens, South Australia both with around 500 inhabitants. No independent reliable sources. The Devaney book, is by something called 'Full Points Publication, which has a website [https://fullpointspublications.wordpress.com/2016/01/22/about-full-points-publications/ but the website indicates that this 'publishing house' is a one-man-band by Mr Devaney, and is essentially self-published. The book by Mr Lines is also self-published Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete At best TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• At least redirect to Hills Football League as an alternative to deletion. – Teratix ₵ 11:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macclesfield Football Club Screech1616 (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, possibly to Hills Football League as suggested above. Three rather different views already expressed on what to do with the article, though I think looking at the article itself, and the opinions given, redirecting at this time is perhaps the best course of action. Article doesn't seem notable enough to be standalone but could be a useful redirect term and the history is then preserved. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:05, 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 redirect to List of most-followed Twitch channels as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, no in-depth coverage and the current sources (except the Wired one) are apparently fictional (all dead links despite being supposedly from this year, back-ups on web.archive (if they exist) are 4xx errors). Actual sources mentioning Tubbo which I found online are unreliable or mention him only in passing. 15 (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 15 (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 15 (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 15 (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have removed unsourced personal information with WP:BLP implications (and the two "sources" for it) with this edit. 15 (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no real improvement from when I last rejected at AfC. I can't find anything to show notability outside of fanbase. So fails WP:BIO/WP:GNG KylieTastic (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article is only citated with two sources, with one of them being marked as a dead link. It definitely fails WP:GNG. Jurta (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I have checked not only the current references by the references of the draft it was accepted from. I have failed to find any that show Tubbo to pass WP:BIO. What I found were 404 errors. The only remaining reference that is not a 404 appears to be a fantasy report of a fantasy world. Depressed, I tried a WP:BEFORE style search and failed to find any items even close to significant coverage about Tubbo in any reliable sources, let alone multiple ones. I conclude that he fails all our inclusion criteria Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of most-followed Twitch channels, since the references that were in the article were faked the subject does not pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to either Dream SMP or Dream (YouTuber), since he's heavily involved with the server and affiliated with Dream. I'm unsure which of the two pages Tubbo should redirect to, which is why I also proposed a Merge as an alternative action; some info about him can go into Dream SMP and other info about him can go into YouTuber Dream. Either way, he needs more sources covering him before he gets his own article here. PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Tubbo has had a charting song on the UK Singles Chart, which was removed without explanation from the article before it was published to mainspace. I have restored it. There is some notability here, but I'm not sure this alone could sustain the article. It appears the uer ExcuseMePowerGamers has made several hoax additions to articles, and they are responsible for fabricating LA Times and NME citations on subjects. I've restored another removed Dexerto citation to the article. Ss112 20:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Dexerto is actually an unreliable source according to WP:VG/RS; I remember because I asked about the outlet a couple months ago. I did find this source from Looper which listed him as a Twitch streamer who "blew up" in 2021; it isn't too long, but it does provide some usable material for the article. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is leaning delete but a few reasonable redirect/merge targets have also been proposed and should be considered
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of most-followed Twitch channels as he's already listed there (and as an aside, this is the first time I've seen 100% made up references in an AFC submission). ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Panini!^🥪 01:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Appears in some sources but when he does, it is a passing mention or part of routine coverage, not in-depth information on the person. IceWelder [✉] 08:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini! and IceWelder: Any particular reason you prefer Delete over a Redirect or Merge to either List of most-followed Twitch channels, Dream SMP or Dream (YouTuber) as proposed by me, Devonian Wombat and ThadeusOfNazereth in the responses above? Not to chastise your vote, I'm just curious. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the article is rather problematic and has seen lots of vandalism. To hinder IP users from disruptively restoring the article off a previous revision, a deletion is preferred. If this was to be a redirect, it should be creted on top of the deleted article per the foregone reason. IceWelder [✉] 21:35, 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 merge to First Lady of Guam. I find Eddie891's contribution the most persuasive. Note the target of this merge isn't exclusive, and some content may be better merged elsewhere per Lajmmorre. Daniel (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Chenoweth Pownall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

If this is all we know about her a standalone article should not exist. Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article at the moment has zero reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP. Has sufficient references/citation. First Lady of Guam is Notable. SWP13 (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This one's tough, since I focus on WIR. Although I've seen quite substantial coverage about the spouse, I wasn't able to find SIGCOV about her and it could easily be because of the times and perhaps not much were written about her in Guam. In the same way some of the articles for women in Papua New Guinea's notability are often challenged due to the nature of their work (not much fanfare) and contributions to their respective community.--WomenProj (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The sources are adequate for the period in question. There are certainly newspaper records which could add to the coverage if anyone can find them.--Ipigott (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep rationales are somewhat weak and assume there is sufficient coverage without offering it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP. Has sufficient references/citation. First Lady of Guam is Notable. SWP13 (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: SWP13 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
• Keep - Citations, references, position all notable. Scanlan (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO. Also, notability is not inherited. KidAd • SPEAK 19:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• merge/redirect: either to her husbands article or to First Lady of Guam. I came here expecting to !vote keep, but have found absolutely no substantive independent coverage that would establish GNG. Based on the time period, if that coverage has not been digitized, I'd still expect to see some inkling of it, but have that has not been forthcoming. Nothing here seems to establish notability independent of her husband. We fundamentally cannot write a substantive article on her (i.e. what she did) with the sources available. Keeping history would allow for recreation should substantive coverage emerge at some time in the future, but it just isn't there from what I have seen-- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I think this should be merged into her husband's article with a redirect from her name - as others say we don't have a record of what she did, but I do think that the page as it provide extra info that is relevant to her husband's. Lajmmoore (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nothing cited in the article counts towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online. Run-of-the-mill businessperson. Edwardx (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not pass WP:NBIO, I could not find significant coverage in any reliable, independent, secondary sources. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No significant roles so fails WP:NACTOR, no claim to meeting WP:NMUSICIAN and the article is cited purely to passing mentions, social media, unreliable websites and paid-for spam. A WP:BEFORE search only yields more press releases and 'Brand Post' coverage in Influencive, Time Bulletin, The Open News and other blacklisted sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  The result was Speedy Delete - G5. Author of the article is global blocked. user:Persianmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:5EC0:B007:1563:F43D:131:422:B361 (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that is not correct. Page creator is neither globally or locally blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This actually refers to the original creator, if you check the deleted edits, the creator of those is globally locked. The IP cited the first AFD. The new incarnation of the article is not similar to the previous one, though. Geschichte (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete article created for an unknown non-notable subject, I couldn't find anything on the web that proved my assertion otherwise Mardetanha (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete non-notabl.--2A01:5EC0:B802:990E:2C59:6E24:3732:A35B (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Doctor Octopus#Film. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Otto Octavius (Marvel Cinematic Universe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication that there is any independent notability for this character just as a Marvel Cinematic Universe character. No discussions, articles or analysis of this character specific to the Marvel Cinematic Universe were found in my WP:BEFORE search. Simply being mentioned as a character in an upcoming movie does not establish notability. Merge or redirect to Doctor_Octopus#Film would also be fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. It’s less than 1 month to the release of Spider-Man: No Way Home which will feature this character. If secondary sources discussing this fictional character don’t appear, then bring to AfD then. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd rather redirect to Doctor Octopus#Film, and if secondary sources appear, then restore the article from the page history and provide it with proper sourcing that establishes notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That might be ok. I’ll think on it. I was thinking either let it develop after the release, or have it deleted then. If you redirect, the poorly sourced content will remain readily accessible indefinitely. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor Octopus#Film per all others, especially Rorshacma. There is not justification now for an independent article, and no good reason to thing there will be in on release, and even then, it should be developed in the main article before being spun out. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or redirect Otto Octavius is a character depicted in multiple ways in multiple media. One article should be sufficient to cover all V'ed incarnations of this notable fictional character. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Doctor Octopus#Film - At this point, there really is nothing to justify splitting this off into an independent article. If, after No Way Homes release, there is enough content that a separate article is needed, it can be re-examined then, though I suspect its likely that it would still be a better fit to be covered on the main article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Doctor Octopus#Film. This falls well short of the requirements set by the MCU project for freestanding articles on film depictions of Marvel Comics characters. BD2412 T 20:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Doctor Octopus#Film. While this character will very likely get more coverage following the release of No Way Home, it is too soon for this character to have a separate article since the coverage does not exist right now to justify that. I agree that it can (and should) be re-examined in the future when coverage changes based on No Way Home. Aoba47 (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete and redirect to Doctor Octopus § Film. To start, the character didn't even originate from the MCU, so the correct title should be Otto Octavius (Sam Raimi film series), which there is currently a draft for with more info at Draft:Otto Octavius (Sam Raimi film series). However, even that draft requires more essential information in order to merit it to be spun off from its comics counterpart, so it should not be published yet either. Furthermore, as BD2412 noted above, this article does not meet the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS among the MCU taskforce regarding character articles, which is detailed at WP:MCUCHARACTERS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and possibly merge to Doctor Octopus#Film. I strongly believe we don't need to split fictional biographies and trivia on development etc. between different comic/animation/live action versions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 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 merge to RMIT Link. Daniel (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:ORG. Full of primary sources, and gnews has 2 hits. LibStar (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG and there are no sources on the web that would be more appropriate. Plus it seems like advertising. FiddleheadLady (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge and redirect to RMIT Link: There is already brief coverage on that target page. I am not seeing evidence that a distinct article is required. RMIT_Link#Music can be expanded to summarise the ensembles, locations and performances. AllyD (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge selectively to RMIT Link per above. Almost all the sources on this subject are WP:PRIMARY, but RMIT Link seems to be a reasonable place to WP:PRESERVE this information. Note that the RMIT Link article also could use some non primary coverage. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Advertorialized WP:AUTOBIO of a smalltown mayor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that he was the mayor of a small town whose mayors are appointed within the town council rather than being directly elected by the general public, which is not an instant notability freebie in the absence of proper sourcing to establish that he could be credibly claimed as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other small-town/appointed mayors -- but the article is written more like a résumé than a proper encyclopedia article, and is referenced to a mix of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all with a small smattering of run of the mill local coverage in the local media where coverage of local mayors is simply expected. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being mayor of a small seaside town does not confer notability, and neither does anything else in this rather exhaustive list of accomplishments. Mccapra (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Winning local offices does not meet WP:NPOL and there doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage to warrant an article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:15, 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 Lei Aloha. Anyone is free to add the song's chart positions in the target article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haruka (Melody song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

non reference, Suggest delete Menu008 (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: all of Melody's articles are unsourced, but it's easy enough to prove that the claimed chart positions for her singles and albums are correct (they are all here [5]), and can be added to the articles as sources. Here is the Oricon chart position for "Haruka" [6] – I don't know where the sales figure has come from, but this definitely reached no. 10 in the chart. Richard3120 (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Melody discography#Singles per WP:NSONGS, unless the article can be expanded. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lei Aloha where the single is part of. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lei Aloha unless evidence of significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources can be located. The chart information is not enough to support a song having an independent article. With that being said, I believe a redirect is preferable to an outright deletion as this is a viable search topic with a viable redirect target. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Double heading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No sources since 2008. Fails WP:V Slender (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, passes WP:GNG per the significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources.^[1][2][3]

SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Like many articles on trains, this is in a sorry state and sorely needs both references and a rewrite. However, there's plenty of SIGCOV to justify keeping the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Evidently notable given the sources shared above. NemesisAT (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep quite notable; Wikipedia:NOIMPROVEMENT is not a reason to delete. There are many sources, and it is a railway topic that is definite notable due to the worldwide usage. Gorden 2211 (talk) 09:46, 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 23:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vidhya Vinod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A previous article about this person was created by a now-blocked WP:COI account and deleted in August 2020. The present article was created as a Draft by a new user, declined 3 times at AfC between January and June 2021, but has now been moved to mainspace by the article creator. (The Infobox photo can also be seen in this reference but has been uploaded to Commons as being from another account's "personal collection".) I can't see the previous article instance to compare it, but Timtrent's rationale on that AfD seems applicable to the present instance, as do the rationales in the AfC rejections, such as that appearing in a 100-richest-women-in-a-country list is not inherently notable here. Although receiving one of 5 New Indian Express "Verve" awards in 2019 is noted in the article, that does not appear inherently notable for WP:ANYBIO #1, and would have been open to consideration in the 2020 AfD. Clearly this is a person who has board roles in various companies but I am not seeing evidence that encyclopaedic notability is demonstrated. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The business person fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Some of the refs are clearly promotional in nature. Venkat TL (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G4 and Salt: WP:ROTM business person. I do not have admin goggles so cannot compare with the prior article that was deleted. Even so I see very similar rationale for deletion. Words such as "entrepreneur" do not need to be stated for real entrepreneurs. M<rketing categories like the 100 richest Foos in Bar are puffery and pointless. They indicate faux notability, gossip column trivia and hype. Vinod did stuff. Good. But it is not notable stuff, and she fails WP:BIO Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing the Deletion The above-stated reasons are just baseless, she had made some remarkable achievements as a woman and that's the reason why the media covered the achievement widely. she is a widely notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.156.209.34 (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Remember declining it and having a discussion on it. Wasn't notable then, ain't notable now. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT pretty clearly a PR piece and does not appear to be any more notable than she was when the previous version was deleted. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:11, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katarina Janikova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable person. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (t · c) buidhe 08:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 08:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 08:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is an author with an Amazon-bestseller to her credit. There are sources to corroborate the content in the article, including the leading Indian daily The Indian Express and the Passion Vista Magazine, besides citations to the book. Will add more sources on finding them. I hope the article is not deleted as the existing sources validate the content.49.207.209.71 (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The New Indian Express source does not provide WP:SIGCOV of Janikova and the Passion Vista source I would guess is pay-to-play. Being an Amazon bestseller is not any indication of notability, see here for why. (t · c) buidhe 19:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • An "author with an Amazon-bestseller to her credit"? See my note below about the book The Prosperity Factor. — Hebrides (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. There is no substantial covarage from proper sources. Only some presentations, obviously covert press releases and promotional stuff. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have spent some time searching for material that might substantiate this person's notability. Unfortunately, every discovery brought further doubts, leading finally to my conclusion that the article should be deleted. To save other editors the time and trouble, here are a few things I found:
  • The book The Prosperity Factor seems to be a compilation of contributions by around fifty authors. Janik is one of these, and her contribution, entitled Best No-Bake Success Recipe, occupies about seven pages in this 384-page book. This book appears in many different covers, each featuring a photograph of one of the 50-or-so co-authors next to Joe Vitale. I removed the book cover image showing Vitale and Janik since it wrongly implied that they were the only co-authors. The book cover template here has a silhouette next to Vitale entitled "Your photo next to Joe", implying that a route to some sort of "fame" was being offered.
  • The book by Janik (The True Story of the Spiritual Awakening…) is "independently published".
  • The apparent journal paper Marketabilty of Block-Chain Technology in Third World Scenario is merely a transcript of an interview with Janik. Neither the paper nor the journal have any entries in Google Scholar.

Further searches failed to reveal anything that might establish the notability of the subject of this article. — Hebrides (talk) 20:23, 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. ✗plicit 03:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wheels (2014 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Indie film with no real coverage in reliable sources. Article was mostly built by an UPE (blocked since) and their sockpuppets (at least 2 of them blocked since). Sources are promotional-tool sites where the producers could buy coverage to publicize their film: broadwayworld.com, imdb, two minor film festivals which mention the film but provide no info about it. One UCLA campus newspaper review by a then-freshman at UCLA writing about it. I don't think that qualifies as significant coverage.

The three accounts that were UPE/socks/block evaders were clearly gaming the system. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Obviously I'm in favor of delete, but wanted to add what brought this article to my attention. It appears the makers of the film engaged in a huge vote-stuffing campaign on both imdb and Rotten Tomatoes. On imdb, there's over 23,000 votes for an unknown movie and nearly 22,000 of them are 8s, 9s, or 10s (10s are the vast majority). On RT, despite there being only 1 review, over 100 users voted to give it a 98% "fresh" user rating. Even Metacritic has six user reviews and all gave it a perfect "10". A valiant effort, supplemented by the aforementioned UPE(s) socking. Someone paid a few bucks to get this article built. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommend reading the arguments in the previous deletion discussion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good resource... with care. One of the "keep" votes (Film Fanatical10069) is a confirmed sockpuppet of an UPE, and another (Кость Лінивець) probably was, based on bahaviour, but that account is no longer active so no way to confirm. A real editor voted "keep" citing Broadwayworld.com, which according to this discussion is not a reliable source to establish notability, because you can pay that site to publish a PR article for you. WorcesterHerald.com, despite the official-sounding name, is not a real newspaper, just a website that was briefly active for several years and is now dormant. I doubt that's a reliable source either. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After another conversation with Toddy1, I wanted to elaborate a little more. I'd like to make it clear that I did remove references that were promotional in nature, and some that were just trivial mentions of the film. The sock editor added them back, I reverted, and Toddy1 reverted me to avoid the impression that I was deleting references just because I wanted the article deleted. The opposite is true - I think the article should be deleted because the references, every single one of them, are either (a) user-submitted content like imdb, (b) paid-for quasi-advertising like broadwayworld.com, (c) trivial mentions of just the title, and (d) one UCLA campus newspaper review by a student. Those are all still there, and I'd encourage voters to look at each one. If you do, you'll see that while it's an impressive-looking mountain of references at first glance, none of them actually stand up to scrutiny as reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage. They were all engineered, one way or another, by people looking to promote the film, and that's why a paid editor(s) and socks were the ones adding them in. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - simply does not pass NFILM. While there has been a major attempt to promote this film, it doesn't pass GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:08, 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. Closing after this was relisted as failing GNG.

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) 21:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BBC One 'Enjoy 2015' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pahiy (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom, this is a non notable topic. Ajf773 (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I disagree. This topic is notable and is part of the history of BBC One's presentation. Rillington (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Prove with sources if you can. Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Logo enthusiast sludge, zero-sourced; use your own wikis, please. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not sourced. Not shown to be notable.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In common with some other articles deleted here, this belongs (as suggested above) on a specialist anorak wiki, not a general one. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I would tend to agree with the view that this is something for a specialist site and does not have the level of notability that would warrant a Wikipedia article. Dunarc (talk) 23:42, 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 Klieck. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Klieck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of any notability for this coat of arms for a smallish town (11000 inhabitants). Fram (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Klieck as lacking independent notability. Mccapra (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Klieck. Agricolae (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Ismail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is pretty much a hoax.

The first reference had no link, and when I searched it in an archive of old magazines there was nothing. The second one is a book which I have a file on. But, after searching through the entire book (thankfully the party that the so called “Anwar Ismail” belonged through only had a few representatives so that wasn’t long), there’s no one named “Anwar Ismail”. The third reference, seemed promising, but seemed like it was either a dead link or fake reference. The final one also has no link.

There was also an image, which has been deleted. The image turned out to be some other guy called Hadji Imam Sofwan. I'm 99% sure this article is a complete hoax. I might be archiving this article, since it lasted a surprisingly long 59 days. The man from Gianyar (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can verify that there are no "Anwar Ismail" in the roster. The tirto.id article seems fake too. Aside from deleting, I would recommend a sanction be given against @Khalif Ali Husain the Third: if the hoax is proven to be created in bad faith. Juxlos (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 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, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Tully (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There seems to be one significant case, which iis not enough for notability as a lawyer. The refs seem to emphasis his purple heart, the most trivial of US awards, tho he does have one higher--tho not high enough for notability in connection with it --I conclude that the purpose of this article is advertising his practice. . DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotional article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MdsShakil (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —MdsShakil (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just promotional. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BASIC, lots of promotional fluff. Mztourist (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet BASIC. I wouldn't say the Purple Heart is the most trivial of US awards (there are many that are FAR more trivial), but it's not near enough on its own for any kind of notability. Intothatdarkness 19:59, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Tempe Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Arena not confirmed at this time, way too early for this article, WP:CRYSTAL applies. It is not known when or even if the arena will be approved by the city council. Significant details (e.g. the Concerns section as of this writing) can be folded into team's article. Construction has not even begun. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's WP:SIGCOV. If the project is cancelled, then it will become an article about the cancelled arena project. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources are sufficient to establish notability for the project. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - enough in-depth coverage to show the project passes GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is significant amount of coverage to keep this article. Just as WaddlesJP13 stated, if it doesn't come to fruition , then it becomes a cancelled project. As to it being WP:TOOSOON, guess you haven't read the articles about All Net Resort & Arena under the [Category:Proposed indoor arenas in the United States] or the Future Buffalo Bills stadium, Miami Freedom Park, Oakland Ballpark, etc. under the [Category:Proposed stadiums in the United States] (couldn't get it to link to those two Category pages). What will we do, delete them all? Roberto221 (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are several sources that show that the project has gained significant coverage. Proposed and cancelled projects can be notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agua Linda, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Mis-identified in GNIS as a "populated place". This is a ranch/farm. The first mention I could find was from 1949 [7] that says the new owner of the 900 acre property was changing the name to Agua Linda Ranch. Contemporary reports [8] say it is a 63-acre farm, available for weddings. Definitely not a notable community. MB 04:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MB 04:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. MB 04:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:GEOLAND, as per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More GNIS spam. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Named for nearby Agua Linda Farm, designed by Josias Joesler and visited by many Hollywood A-listers, though I cannot locate a source supporting it was ever a populated settlement. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. Wikipedia is not a list of every spot on the map.TH1980 (talk) 01:14, 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. ✗plicit 06:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Banquet Busters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NFILM, like most Woody Woodpecker shorts. A basic BEFORE search found no significant coverage to speak of, and the existing article has no references that meet NFILM. This should be a redirect, but my attempt to do so was contested, so I am bringing the article to AfD to establish consensus. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not independently notable from Woody Woodpecker filmography. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 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 Woody Woodpecker filmography. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Coo Coo Bird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NFILM, literally nothing but a plot summary and 2 sentences for the lead section. Like most Woody Woodpecker shorts, this does not have sufficient notability to be a standalone article. I cannot find any SIGCOV from a before search. I initially redirected this to Woody Woodpecker filmography, but the redirect was reverted, so I am taking this to AfD to establish consensus. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:RUNOFTHEMILL cartoon episode, not independently notable from Woody Woodpecker filmography. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Woody Woodpecker filmography per nom. Not enough references to establish it's notability. Jurta talk 21:45, 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 Woody Woodpecker filmography. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Redwood Sap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Outside of the 1 reference to The Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons, I cannot find any SIGCOV from a before search. This should be redirected, which is what I did initially, but my redirect was reverted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Woody Woodpecker filmography per nom. Not enough references to establish it's notability. Jurta talk 21:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG, redirect to Woody Woodpecker filmography. Binksternet (talk) 06:51, 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 06:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle tui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Have not been able to find sufficient sources to meet GNG under either this title or the page's previous title, Michelle Koyak. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Even the only source in the article is a dead link. She isn't notable at all and has 33 Instagram followers. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. Fails WP:GNG. Lack of reliable references that justify subject's notability. DMySon (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - despite claims of being a celebrity and being known for all sorts of wonderful things, I couldn't find a single bit of coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:V. Jumpytoo Talk 19:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there a reason the page creator wasn't informed of this discussion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's nothing here that supports a claim of notability and nothing found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom Devokewater ^(talk) 02:56, 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 redirect to Woody Woodpecker filmography. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep Happy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails to meet GNG. Article has just 1 reference, and I cannot find any SIGCOV from a basic before search. Like most Woody Woodpecker films, it is not notable enough to justify an article, and should be redirected. This is what I did initially, but my redirect was reverted, so I am taking the article to AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Woody Woodpecker filmography per nom. Not enough references to establish it's notability. Jurta talk 21:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG, redirect to Woody Woodpecker filmography. Binksternet (talk) 06:53, 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Xiu (Sui dynasty) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I PROD'd this article because it was unsourced. Now, a few sources have been added to the bottom of the page but the content of the article is unverified and could be original research for all anyone can tell. It makes a lot of historical claims and tells detailed stories without any evidence of its accuracy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this is a rationale for deletion. The number of editors working on Chinese history topic is extremely small—most articles on individuals pre 20th-century are in awful shape, even higher-profile emperors. This, along with hundreds of other Chinese history articles, uses primary sources and has no footnotes, mainly because that is how the few editors who did write on Chinese history wrote their articles. Again, WP:DEL-CONTENT says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". If deleting articles because they could be OR was a practice, the thousands of articles with the tag "this article cites no sources", wouldn't exist. Aza24 (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I added a couple of inline book references. I can understand that the nominator is bothered by the present text, with its anecdotes about framing with buried dolls, etc., but adapting/simplifying the text to move from the historiographical practice of past times to the norms of our time and extending inline referencing are matters for normal editing rather than AfD. AllyD (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Worst case the article can be stubified, and I believe there is no question as to this persons notability. Jumpytoo Talk 19:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly notable. Remove or cite unsourced material as needed. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- A lack of sources is not a ground for AFD. Such articles should be tagged to be referenced, unless blatantly WP:OR or HOAX. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep very notablen historical figure. VocalIndia (talk) 13:00, 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 06:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy, Wyoming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There really is no excuse for this one, given that the source cited for the origin of the name says, in its entirety, "Tracy,—478.8 miles from Omaha; elevation 5,149 feet. It is a side track named in honor of Judge Tracy of Cheyenne." The topo says it's a siding too. We have never taken sidings to be notable per se. Mangoe (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GEOLAND assuming it is a railway siding; however, the name being Tracy turns up so many false positives. As well, there's a number of mentions in books but many are poorly digitized so it's hard to tell if it's actually mentioning this place. Having said that, nothing I was able to find establishes this as anything other than a railway siding. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 03:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article, and thousands like it on Wikipedia, is one that has grown entirely out of poorly-thought-out editing practise, that in turn came apparently out of a desire to rack up a high article-creation-count. So someone looks at GNIS and sees that this is a "populated place", and since Wikipedia practise has been that everywhere on GNIS that is a "populated place" should be described as an "unincorporated community" (a suitably meaningless catch-all), that's what they do. This is because of this mantra, that was never the result of any actual consensus, that Wikipedia is a gazetteer of populated places so every populated place on GNIS (or even worse, GEONet Names Server) should have a corresponding article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is in fact not a gazetteer - it is an encyclopaedia. However, even a glance at NPP shows that articles like this are still being produced at a rate of 10+ a day (the latest I've seen was a string of articles about tiny "villages" in Dagestan about which literally nothing can be written sourced to a reliable source beyond the name and the district population in 2010). Simply trying to AFD all of them one-by-one is not the solution. FOARP (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another non-notable geostub. Avilich (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable rail siding mislabeled as a populated place by GNIS, with erroneous "community" designation added by the article creator. –dlthewave ☎ 05:16, 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. Sandstein 09:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva International Jewish Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article is full of primary sources. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 03:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 03:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I did find this interview with the artistic director of the film festival [9]. There certainly might be more sources which are not in English. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial mentions in lists only. I found no in-depth coverage. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Leone–Spain relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article seems largely sourced from the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There are no embassies, agreements, state visits etc. Article even states "Sierra Leone has not traditionally been a country of cooperation for Spain," LibStar (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of significant coverage about this supposed relationship from independent sources. Article essentially admits to being non-notable as pointed out by the nominator Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 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. Sandstein 17:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Based on her IMDB, she has only appeared in a few web series. KidAd • SPEAK 23:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm not quite sure about this one, but in terms of WP:BASIC, she comes pretty close with the Indy Star article in combination with the Butler article (which is a student newspaper so not quite as strong). The article certainly needs some more work but that's a separate issue.--Cerebral726 (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC requires multiple published[4] secondary sources. One source in "IndyStar" is not enough. And I don't understand your vote. What do you "oppose"? It is "keep" or "delete". KidAd • SPEAK 17:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, edited to match correct phrasing. --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Of the sources I can find about Hannigan, only the Indy Star article is independent, reliable, and has significant coverage. Of the rest cited on the page: Butler article is an interview (not independent) and from a college paper (not 100% reliable); Broadway World is basically an event listing; Cleve Scene is also an event listing. Needs multiple (at least 2) sources that are independent, reliable, and has significant. Samsmachado (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 01:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails on both NWP:GNG and NWP:ARTIST Louie (talk) 07:28, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Second nomination following a first discussion that was closed no consensus due to a complete failure of anybody to participate in the discussion at all. This is still a WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim I can discern here is that he exists, and said existence is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as his self-published social networking profiles and streaming platforms and online music stores -- and the only source that's actually independent or reliable just soundbites a brief quote from him in an article whose core subject is something else, which is not enough in either substance or volume to get him over WP:GNG all by itself if all of the sourcing around it is garbage. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with the nominator that the sources in the article are either unreliable or not significant and thus don't contribute to WP:GNG notability. Searching is difficult since I obviously don't speak Amharic, but I haven't been able to identify anything that would suffice under either the GNG or WP:NMUSIC. I'm always glad to reëvaluate if some significant coverage can be identified, but until then I'm thinking he isn't notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 12 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 01:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication the subject meets WP:SINGER. Despite searching for references in the native language with the help of Google Translate, I didn't really come across any website that could plausibly be considered significant coverage. The references in the article certainly don't establish notability. ✗plicit 07:05, 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 keep. There is consensus that this needs improvement rather than deletion. However, even those editors !voting to keep have expressed serious concerns with the content, and if issues with poor sourcing and promotionalism are not speedily addressed, an argument based on WP:TNT would be persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non notable, WP:ROTM businesswoman. Fails WP:BIO. Source analysis of this permalink version follows

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Timtrent
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://agewave.com/who-we-are/the-team/	Own site	own site	OWn site	✘ No
https://www.forbes.com/sites/blakemorgan/2020/03/05/50-leading-female-futurists/?sh=4df5b7868c90	Forbes is independent	TGHis is a marketing style puffery list	Passing mention in the extended list. Also ran!	✘ No
https://www.wsj.com/articles/5-top-wealth-management-posts-of-2017-from-the-experts-blog-1515441871?tesla=y	WSJ is inde0endent	These are blog posts	? Behind a paywall	✘ No
https://www.esalen.org/press-release/ken-and-maddy-dychtwald-receive-the-2016-esalen-prize-for-advancing-human-potential-of-aging-population		?	Full press release, by them about her	? Unknown
Torres, Blanca (April 16, 2006). "Redefining what getting older means; Consultant and author specializes in getting businesses in touch with the baby boom generation". Contra Costa Times.	?	?	?	? Unknown
https://www.newonline.org	?	?	not mentioned	✘ No
https://www.newonline.org	own site	own site	Buy My Book	✘ No
https://maddydychtwald.com/books-and-blogs/gideons-dream/	own site	own site	Buy My Mook	✘ No
https://www.grandmagazine.com		?	not mentioned	✘ No
https://goatmilkstuff.com	?	Sales site	not mentioned	✘ 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)).

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]