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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billbergia 'Albertii'[edit]

Billbergia 'Albertii' (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)

For background to this bundled nomination, please see the previous bundles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tillandsia 'Feather Duster', which closed with a consensus to delete the first 10 of these cultivar stubs, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tillandsia 'Gunalda', which closed with a consensus to delete the next 50. Please also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#cultivars for a discussion of the notability of cultivars, which was unanimous in affirming that cultivars must meet WP:GNG and do not have the presumption of notability granted to official taxonomic ranks such as species (and in which numerous participants voiced the opinion that undersourced cultivars ought to be deleted).

The remainder of this statement is copy-pasted (slightly reworded) from the Feather Duster AfD linked above:

All of the following articles are sourced solely to the cultivar database maintained by the Bromeliad Society International. Anyone can submit new cultivars to this database simply by filling in an email form. There does not seem to be any rigorous scrutinizing or verification process that the cultivar even exists, which is to say that it is essentially a user-generated primary source. Even if it were sufficiently reliable, I have not been able to locate any independent coverage for any of the cultivars I have tagged, nor do I expect to locate any for other similar cultivar stubs. It's clear that these cultivars don't meet the threshold for a standalone article either on verifiability or on notability.

When I encountered cultivars of a single species, I redirected to the parent species as possible search terms. Unfortunately, the great majority are hybrids of two species. From a technical perspective, this makes merging difficult, as an article cannot be redirected to two places and there is no objective way to determine which of the two "parent" species should have the redirect (and never mind those which are hybrids of hybrids). Merging would also mean including information in the species articles sourced only to a user-generated primary source.

Merging each one to the genus article would take up an enormous amount of space and place similar undue importance on a large list of unverified, non-notable cultivars. Merging to a standalone list is also not suitable, as the list would fail the verifiability/notability criteria owing to a lack of independent sourcing.

The following 20 cultivars will be included in this nomination just as soon as I can tag them. As before, I intend to notify WP:PLANTS.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:45, 19 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 23:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per comments in previous AFDs. SnowFire (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. There is very little useful in the Keep votes here, the first one admits to being WP:IAR, the second one is per the first one, and the third is merely "here's what I found on Google". However I don't see any harm in draftifying it so that it can be improved, if that is indeed possible. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last Man Down[edit]

Last Man Down (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)

Film seems unlikely to meet WP:NFILM- coverage is limited to WP:ROUTINE reviews following its release. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Doesn’t meet GNG which is quite sufficient and a parameter to ascertain the notability status of a film. Furthermore WP:NFOE nor any other inclusionary criterion isn’t quite met. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:IAR and WP:CREEP. I’m unable to see how the encyclopedia or reader experience is improved by following the destructive Afd and notability guidelines which indicate this and many other informative and factually accurate articles need to be deleted. The guidelines need to be revamped to remove their destructive effects, but in the meantime we must simply ignore them per IAR, a pillar policy. —В²C ☎ 07:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Born2cycle. WP:GNG is a well established policy which has been subject to lots of discussion. Could you please explain which part of it is excessively instructive? And why this specific film is a special case affected by the issue (WP:IAR is typically used as a last resort)? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think GNG means well to avoid misuse. But I think “significant coverage” needs to be measured differently depending on the topic area. For example, the bar for significant coverage for a biography should be much higher than for a film. Let’s define an “obscure” topic to be one not meeting GNG. I think the benefit of excluding articles about obscure people is obvious. The value of not having articles about obscure films is not obvious at all. To the contrary. I mean, if we can establish the name, year, cast, and production company for a film, why not have at least a stub with that info it? Does that make sense? Right now if we blindly follow the rules, articles like this one have to be deleted. But other than to follow the rules, why? How is the encyclopedia or anyone better off with this article deleted? Aren’t they worse off due to such deletions? I think so. —В²C ☎ 07:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. It seems to me that your disagreement is with WP:GNG itself, rather than being specific to this article. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s why I’m invoking IAR. The encyclopedia is worsened by strictly following GNG and deleting this article. —-В²C ☎ 18:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Born2cycle DonaldD23 talk to me 14:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Still fails WP:NF. Long-time editors should realize that their keep will be skipped over by the closing admin if it's not based on notability guidelines. SL93 (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I haven’t spent much time at Afd and I see that. But there’s something very wrong here when we’re deleting articles about bonafide films that readers are likely to look up, if only to find out there’s little known about them. That needs to be fixed. —В²C ☎ 07:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't. Wikipedia wasn't made for everything verifiable ever since its creation. SL93 (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The contents of this article are verifiable. You can even buy it on Amazon or watch it on Prime. Not having an article about it is ridiculous. —В²C ☎ 07:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't say it wasn't verifiable. I'm saying that Wikipedia doesn't need to change to have everything that is verifiable because that was not the intention when Wikipedia started. SL93 (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, sorry. I agree WP doesn’t need to have everything verifiable. But I do think everything verifiable within certain categories of topics does belong in WP. That should include produced/distributed films, as well as, for example, cities and species. The bottom line is anything people are likely to look for and seek information about belongs here. I mean, why not? How is it not improved if we do that? —В²C ☎ 15:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fundamentally, I disagree with the way IAR is invoked here. Stubs don't benefit Wikipedia, they just disappoint readers. If all we can do is write a stub because expanding would require original research, then there's no point to keeping this article. We should be careful about whether we're invoking WP:IAR or WP:ILIKEIT. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think either one of us can speak for all readers, but I for one certainly appreciate the information provided in a stub like this one, and rarely read full WP articles, especially about films. I want the gist of what it's about, when it was produced, who's in it, and that's about it. This stub already has all that. I can get the rest if I decide to watch it based on that. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Far from. If there's a full article on a film I'm almost certain to only skim it for the kind of information that's in this stub. And, frankly, I think this one is already beyond stub level. --В²C ☎ 07:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this topic is better suited to IMDB.com than Wikipedia. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's also indisputably a stub, at 430 characters of prose. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate activity on a WP:STUB article is expansion (when possible), but certainly not deletion. I’m baffled by this predilection to delete. —В²C ☎ 16:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to draft to incubate for six months, to see whether additional sources are found or developed in that time. BD2412 T 19:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. In just a few moments of searching I found multiple sources.Super (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This film has a few actors that are notable and have their own articles. I see no reason why this needs to be deleted? Also, Admins shouldn't be skipping over any vote period and if Admins are tossing community consensus out the window and doing as they please then thats not right. There are multiple sources that can easily be found [1] [2] [3]. I could keep listing sources but that's three, which is what we need. I have seen Rotten Tomatoes listing used to justify a keep alone. Super (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The rotten tomatoes entry is routine, and the hollywood reporter source isn't more in detail than "this is a movie with actors. the actors have names and the movies have a release date". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 06:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify, per BD2412. From what I see, there is no consensus on meeting a specific notability guide but there are those who believe that better referenced information is available. Rather than remove the content, albeit sparse, better to give it a chance for improvement in draft space. Ifnord (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, and I can't speak for others, although of course I see room for improvement in the article, I see nothing but goodness in leaving it as it is as opposed to removing (whether as deletion or move to draft). In its current state, it is literally infinitely better than nothing, and no one in this discussion has said anything to counter this point. --В²C ☎ 06:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia articles are a work of the collective. The collective maintains, improves, categorizes, presents, and curates the article. If every remotely potentially encyclopedic topic were included, the collective's energy would be spread too thin, and the quality of articles would be worse overall. To combat this, we ask ourselves the question "if this article were expanded as much as possible without violating our policy against original research, how large would this article be?" If the highest potential for an article, with all of the sourcing out there, is still a stub, then yes, keeping it on principle would harm the project's ability to present cohesive, comprehensive, and useful information to the reader. In other words, Wikipedia is not and should not be an indiscriminate collection of information. We can't spend energy on every film that has ever existed, every book, every television show, every song, every person, when for 99% of all the things and people in the world, there's nothing we can say about them. We should concentrate our resources where they can do the most good. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 09:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Snow (2019 video game). (non-admin closure) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poppermost Productions[edit]

Poppermost Productions (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 is not of encyclopedic value, probably doesn't really meet notability, and largely reads like a Steam store page. Jasphetamine (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jasphetamine (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:ATD to Snow (2019 video game), the company's only video game. IceWelder [✉] 19:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Snow (2019 video game): not seeing much significant coverage, but it does have passing mentions in the articles about that game. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Snow (2019 video game) per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shawna Lenee[edit]

Shawna Lenee (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)

Being quoted as opposing a tax rise isn’t actually any basis for us to host a BLP and the article no longer exists. Otherwise what we have as sources is utterly hopeless. Fails GNG and ENT Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails all current notability guidelines. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks sufficient independent RS coverage to pass WP:BASIC and no reliably sourced evidence of passing WP:ENTERTAINER. References in the article are junk. An independent search for RS coverage yielded quotes by the subject and a short puff piece at glavred.info. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taija Rae[edit]

Taija Rae (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)

Seriously deficient in the sources department. I have no idea how this has survived for so long. The only thing of any merit is an interview so not useful. Fails GNG & ENT Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:BASIC for lack of significant reliable secondary coverage. No independent RS support for any claim of passing WP:NACTOR. An independent RS search yields only trivial mentions. This might have passed PORNBIO a long, long time ago, but Wikipedia's notability and sourcing guidelines have come a long way since then. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I found one possibly good source, but it's not enough coverage either way. SL93 (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per nomination, lacking reliable evidence of notability. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 00:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benoni W. Finch[edit]

Benoni W. Finch (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:BIO. Being the first sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, isn't going to do it. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Newspapers.com has quite a few mentions, but nothing spectacular and nothing that provides WP:SIGCOV. Curbon7 (talk) 03:33, 28 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 23:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Harrison[edit]

Andre Harrison (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:MMABIO notability criteria as he doesn't have any fights in a top tier promotion, nor has he been ranked inside the top 10 of his division by sherdog or fightmatrix. Also fails WP:GNG as main coverage is through routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 21:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with everything RafaelHP wrote. In addition, his current ranking is 78th so it's not likely he's on the verge of meeting any criteria at WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - None of the sources are from any reliable source. fails WP:GNG Mommmyy (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benoni Moore[edit]

Benoni Moore (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 person of local prominence only. Fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN as selectman of a small community. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Per rationale by Clarityfiend. I too do not see the politician meeting the threshold for establishing notability for politicians. Celestina007 (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Certainly doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, can't imagine how he'd meet the GNG. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Ravenswing 09:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob McClintock[edit]

Jacob McClintock (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:MMABIO notability criteria as he only has 2 fights in a top tier promotion out of the required three. Also fails WP:GNG as main coverage is through routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 21:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He lost both his top tier fights and with only 1 fight since 2012 he's not likely to get another. Fightmatrix says his highest ranking ever was #76 and that's not close to being top 10. Coverage is routine sports reporting. As for his third place at the world IBJJF championships, it was in a purple belt division which is not close to being the top tier required by WP:NSPORT or the black belt level mentioned at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:MMABIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher, Washington[edit]

Fletcher, Washington (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 one appears to be a combination of some error in GNIS and a failure to fully compare the sources against each other. The GNIS entry is no longer there, and the name doesn't appear on the topos until after they cease to show structures; considering that the coordinates settle directly on a farmstead, though, with no sign of a former rail right-of-way, this cannot be the right location. Furthermore the place names DB (which was not referenced) says that it was a railroad station as well. Not sure what went on ehre but not getting indications this was an actually settlement. Mangoe (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Hoo boy this one's a mess! It appears that the article was created without coordinates and a bot later added coords for a different Fletcher in nearby Adams County. I went ahead and added the correct coordinates which do point to a place next to a railroad which was marked as "Fletcher" on topos up until 1938. But it's all for naught since neither location shows any sign of being a notable community. –dlthewave ☎ 03:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Bardoux[edit]

Rebecca Bardoux (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)

Not passing GNG or ENT. Possible RS are pretty poor. Pornlifemagzine redirects to a web cam site. Vegasnews is clearly a warmed up press release full of promotional language and has no byline. Finally measure aB is about being an advocate so any notability from that is NOTINHERITED The rest of the sources are the usual rubbish. Possible redirect to AVN HOF after deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete most of the references seem to be not about her, fails NACTOR and GNG. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Cooper (fighter)[edit]

Bill Cooper (fighter) (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:MMABIO notability criteria as he only has 2 fights in a top tier promotion out of the required three. Also fails WP:GNG as main coverage is through routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 21:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 23:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benoni Hill[edit]

Benoni Hill (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)

Sources, such as they are, are totally inadequate for WP:GNG. None of them are about him specifically. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – there's nothing in the article beyond primary sources and trivial mentions, and my searches find nothing more. While I often extend special solicitude to historical figures about whom offline sources may exist, I don't think that would be helpful in this case: Hill seems to have been little more than an unexceptional businessman respected by his community, so I doubt that adequate sources could ever be found. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Wave - Squid Party[edit]

New Wave - Squid Party (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 political party which has not let participated in any elections, delete or merge to Kim Dong-yeon. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Wiki is still being worked on as the party just formed, so Korean articles are still being translated to English. But they will be running in the 2022 presidential election. No need for a merge, as other minor parties are represented with a Wiki. Bashore101 (talk | contribs) 10:31, 13 November 2021 (KST)

• Weak Keep or userfy for now as the article is being developed, per Bashore101. Hopefully there are refs in English. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:11, 14 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) 08:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep for now—I imagine this will get more coverage in Korean media as we get closer to the election in three months or so—we should preserve the article until then. No prejudice against draftification, but keeping seems more straightforward. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philemon Nana Akomeah[edit]

Philemon Nana Akomeah (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)

Possible failure of WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The appearances for Telecom Egypt and Yeni Malatyaspor are unverified and, in any case, neither of these clubs were playing in an WP:FPL at that time. I found one small Ghana Soccernet article about a collapse and also some transfer rumour coverage relating to Slavia Sofia and another for Sepahan. I am completely unable to verify that he ever actually played for either of those two clubs, if he did then he would certainly be notable. Soccerway covers both the top tier of Bulgaria and of Iran but a search for his name fails to find him, which makes me suspect that he never played a game for either Slavia Sofia nor Sepahan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom and without prejudice to change vote to Keep if significant coverage is later found. For my search, I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV for the subject, noting that someone with searching skills for Ghanaian/Turkish sources might uncover things I was unable to. Until that point, my vote stands as delete. GauchoDude (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furness Premier Football League[edit]

Furness Premier Football League (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)

Many recent discussions on leagues at the same level and with similar weak claims to notability have been closed as delete, for example Guildford and Woking Alliance League and Mid-Somerset Football League.

This league is at least 3 tiers below the rule-of-thumb provided by WP:FOOTYN and so WP:GNG needs to be met to qualify for an article. Google searches come back with very, very little. The best that I can find are some passing mentions in NWE Mail such as this and this. A league needs to have significant coverage in more than one news source, especially considering that it's a minor local paper. British newspaper searches of "Furness Premier League" and "Furness Premier Football League" returned absolutely nothing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, for the usual reasons. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Devokewater ^(talk) 11:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's just not notable.

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Andrzejewski[edit]

Leonard Andrzejewski (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 ● 💬 15:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong keep - inadequate before did not look at interwiki. Polish Wiki article notes that he was the winner of two major cultural awards: Medal of the 10th Anniversary of People's Poland and Meritorious Activist of Culture. matt91486 (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT as it stands, bordering on A7. I don't know why Matt has not fixed the issue. Geschichte (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of AFD is to demonstrate notability, not necessarily for me personally to improve an article at the immediate time. I'm not clear why you think a two sentence stub of an article needs to be TNT. Winners of major awards clearly demonstrate notability. Why you think I need to stop my vacation to improve an article because I pointed out the subject has won two awards is...unclear. But nevertheless, I added a sentence about it into the article. I don't have particularly easy access to Communist era Polish newspapers to get better write-ups on their distribution. matt91486 (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:TNT seems completely unnecessary for a neutrally-written and sourced three-sentence stub. The awards matt91486 found demonstrate notability and the article, while a stub, is a perfectly fine base to build on. Rusalkii (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: looks like the awards constitute a keep per WP:ANYBIO. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haskell V. Anderson III[edit]

Haskell V. Anderson III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A fairly prolific journeyman actor who fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:03, 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)} 13:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a close call. This was Nominated and kept before. The article is barely more than a stub and is poorly written and referenced, but this actor has had roles in film, numerous TV shows (dozens of guest-starring roles on major TV series), and theatre. Especially for an actor of color, I'd err on the side of keeping. If anyone has the time to research more references, that would be very helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Those appearances on TV series are in roles described generically as "Male Juror", "College Interviewer", "Annoyed Neighbor", etc. (with very few exceptions), hardly indicative of guest star status. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:03, 13 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) 08:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, there is only one "source" about him specifically, and that's just a two-film filmography, so a big WP:GNG fail. WP:HESADISADVANTAGEDCOLORSOLETSGIVEHIMABREAK is not a valid argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrawali[edit]

Chandrawali (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)

An article of an upcoming movie, per WP:TOOSOON. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFILM and WP:NFF DonaldD23 talk to me 14:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG and WP:NFF. Per NFF, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, ... films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." There is nothing here to show any notability at all. Delete. Platonk (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Miracle Worker[edit]

The Miracle Worker (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)

Propose redirecting to Miracle Worker (disambiguation). My bold redirect was reverted, so bringing it here for discussion. My rationale is that the article duplicates the existing disambiguation page, and the prose content contains no useful information that isn't already present in the articles on the individual works. This isn't a "cycle" of works that requires a standalone article, it's a play which has been several times adapted for screen by different companies. Dan from A.P. (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miracle Worker (disambiguation)#Film, television, and theatre. Per nom, the article duplicates the purpose of the disambiguation page. All the films are based on the same play (thus why they have the same name), but it's not a "franchise" or a "cycle" as the article claims, just several independent adaptations of the same work sharing the same name. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to disambiguation page for the reasons stated in the nom. Article is wholly redundant. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as a WP:CONCEPTDAB. It is not OK to redirect to a DAB page, as DAB page entries are required to have their own articles. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After a delightfully civil conversation with the nom, I've decided to reopen this discussion and let it play out for another week. I'll recuse and let another reviewer close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the closer got it right the first time. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to The Miracle Worker (play), which should be at this title. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Axelrod[edit]

Nicole Axelrod (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 actress with no significant roles. SL93 (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails the GNG, of course, and certainly WP:CREATIVE -- a handful of roles as a child actress with parts like "Little Girl #4" and "Girl in Ice Cream Store" does not notability make. Article created by a SPA whose almost exclusive Wikipedia activity it was. Ravenswing 17:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. May be an autobio or a PR agent effort. Nevertheless, she does not meet WP criteria for inclusion at this time. Netherzone (talk) 19:24, 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. Geschichte (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salo (business)[edit]

Salo (business) (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)

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Sources are directory listings, routine local coverage and/or interviews with company personnel. MB 16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MB 16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MB 16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MB 16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not seeing evidence of notability. ASUKITE 16:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Much of the article is describing routine appointment and acquisition activity; the remainder is trivial coverage of publicised "office rituals". I am not seeing the necessary coverage about the company which is needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A little bit of HEY also involved. Daniel (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Store Capital[edit]

Store Capital (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)

Nominated for deletion during New Page Patrol. Previously deleted. IMO deeply fails wp:notability. Zero suitable or even near-suitable sources. North8000 (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)-[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails to meet notability guideline. All the sources from Google search is coming from websites like Seeking Alpha, Nasdaq, FOX43 etc. None of these seems reliable. VincentGod11 (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Nasdaq and Seeking Alpha not reliable? Please check my comments below. I have found 8 new good citations. Jaxarnolds (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a $9 billion market capitalization publicly traded real estate investment trust, and certainly has reliable sources to demonstrate notability, per WP:LISTED. Its stock is a component of a major U.S. Stock market index, the S&P 400. How is nasdaq.com, the website of Nasdaq, Inc. not a reliable source? Plus the Phoenix Business Journal here; many other sources. And when was this article previously deleted? (not that that would matter in the slightest). UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether that reference is a reliable source. The question is whether the topic has in depth coverage by reliable sources in accordance with the wp notability quidelines. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yet another generic soulless retail REIT. Its entire website feels like something created for a combined marketing/web development project that doesn't answer the question "but what do you actually do?!?!" in plain English. Nate • (chatter) 06:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. -Hatchens (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I tried to search sources but can't find much even after 15mins of search . Fails WP:NCORP. Mtpos (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding! did you actually search? check my comment below. Jaxarnolds (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because I am seeing lot's of news about them in Google that are indepth such as fool.com 1, marketbeat, seekingalpha, fool.com 2, azcentral 1 (behind paywall, but appears indepth), azcentral 2, americanbanker, NASDAQ and many more. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Jaxarnolds (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of the flurry of links, IMO if you would like really make/state your case on the question at hand, how about finding/selecting 2 independent RS's that have in-depth coverage of Store Capital? North8000 (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they are all good, but these 5 are the best NASDAQ, americanbanker, azcentral. fool.com 1, fool.com 2. If you change your mind now, you can withdraw the AFD nomination. I have also added some other citations to the article. Jaxarnolds (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are references that you added since the AFD. Those new references are better. North8000 (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there's a lot of crap sources such as Motley Fool and Seeking Alpha (both of which put out too much stock-picking churnalism for me to give weight to any of their articles). There's also some coverage of run-of-the-mill business transactions, like the Berkshire one mentioned above, and a real estate transaction in the business press. And the local newspaper, The Arizona Republic, has covered them, though those are behind a paywall. (And some "Reit magazine" discussed them in what might not have been an advertorial.) It is enough coverage. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. For public companies, the best references for establishing notability are analyst report. Zack's provides an analyst report which you can download (for no obligation!) by providing your name and email address. There is evidence that at least one other analysts, BTIG Research, also provides analysis reports to their clients on this company - for example this presentation includes in-depth information on slide 42. In my opinion, there are sufficient references, topic passes NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Due to the newly found and added references. But I am not withdrawing my nomination so that others can fully decide. North8000 (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Bedouin[edit]

Palestinian Bedouin (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 appears to be a POV fork of Negev Bedouin, to push the POV that these Bedouins are an organic part of the Palestinian people. Virtually all the contents there appears in the original article, with less POV terminology. A redirect to Negev Bedouin had been made by several editors previously, and reverted each time, with a suggestion to take it here. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a POV fork. I wrote the Negev Bedouin article with the intention of covering the Bedouin inside the borders of Israel (1967 borders). 14 years later, Bedouin inside Israel is still the focus of that article. This article attempts to also cover Bedouin outside of the 67 borders (eg West Bank Bedouin). That's not a WP:content fork. One could argue that the scope of Negev Bedouin should be expanded to include Bedouin outside the 67 borders (and perhaps moving Negev Bedouin to something else that indicates the expanded scope), but I don't see consensus for that either.VR _talk 15:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

95% of the Palestinian Bedouin article is about Bedouin inside Israel, not those outside of the 67 borders and overlaps what you wrote (albeit in a more POV manner), and the 5% that is about them added just last week, after I raised my FORK concerns. Do you support removing those parts that overlap (replacing them with a "See main article Negev Bedouin)? Inf-in MD (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a good idea. Imagine arguing that the article Palestinians should have nothing on Arab citizens of Israel because the latter article already exists. The 95%/5% issue sounds like a WP:WEIGHT problem and I agree it should be fixed.VR _talk 16:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this article covers more than Negev Bedouin, and the editor who created this AFD earlier acknowledged that with the material on West Bank Bedouin that this article should be kept. Seems odd to then nominate it for deletion. But Palestinian Bedouin is not a POV fork as it covers material totally unrelated, the West Bank Bedouin being very much not in Israel, very much not in the Negev, and very much Palestinian. Not getting his way on content in the article, and being unwilling to pursue DR as one normally would do if editing in good faith, is not a valid deletion reason. This deletion request appears to be a a classic case of forum shopping - they didn't get their way in the talk page discussion, so took it to AfD on spurious grounds. nableezy - 15:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I am ok with the article being kept, if its scope excludes the overlapping areas (currently 95% of the article), but as my attempts to reduce that overlap were reverted, here we are. Inf-in MD (talk)

So because you are unable to "win" a content dispute you nominate the article for deletion? And you describe that exact MO as a classic case of forum shopping elsewhere? Huh. nableezy - 16:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained my position clearly: I am fine with having one article for Bedouin inside Israel, one for those outside. I am not fine with having two articles with 95% overlap, which is the current situation. There are multiple ways to resolve this - one is a merge+redirect, which you oppose. Another is to remove the overlapping content, which you also oppose. I will leave to others to see who is trying to win a dispute here.Inf-in MD (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have explained that due to being unable to prevail in a content dispute you nominated this article for deletion. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and per your own words this is a a classic case of forum shopping. nableezy - 16:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a merge, you removed my merge tag and suggested I take it to AfD . I do that, and now you accuse me of forum shopping? Don't you get tired of playing these tendentious games? Inf-in MD (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your merge tag at Negev Bedouin is still up so you are simultaneously proposing a merge and deletion as well as talking about a redirect.Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these things are mutually exclusive - a common result of AfD discussion is a merge or redirect, and I would be okay with either Inf-in MD (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then close the merge discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why? as I wrote, these outcomes are both acceptable to me. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the theoretical possibility of contradictory outcomes in separate discussions.It's a matter of process.Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a real problem. If this AfD ends in 'Delete', you could still merge whtever non-overlapping content into the original article. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have no intention to follow process, I haven't expressed an opinion here until now but you have managed to convince me.Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting framing. Considering that you later admitted the topic is not covered by Negev Bedouin with the inclusion of material on West Bank Bedouin. If you feel that the content of the article now is in some way lacking, then, again, WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. If you are upset that what you admit is a discrete topic from Negev Bedouin includes material you do not want included, then you can make that argument. What you are doing here however is, exactly as you claimed elsewhere to be a classic case of forum shopping, is deleting an article due to being unable to prevail in a content dispute. But no, I am not accusing you of anything tendentiously or otherwise. I am noting that your own words indict your actions as forum-shopping. And you admit to doing exactly what you criticize others for doing. Tendentious game playing indeed. nableezy - 18:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am following the exact process you suggested, only to have you accuse me of forum shopping. Tendentious game playing is exactly what you are doing. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was prior to the inclusion of material that you yourself admitted makes the subject not a POVFORK lol. You can pretend that the passage of time is theoretical, but now, with the inclusion of material you yourself admits does not fit in Negev Bedouin and you yourself admits should be kept in an article on Palestinian Bedioun, are nominating said article for deletion because you have been unable to prevail in a content dispute on other material. And you have several options there, such as an RFC. Bad faith nominations of articles you know are not POVFORKs because they include material wholly unrelated and cannot be covered in the supposed forked from article, in ways that you yourself describe as a classic case of forum shopping is what is now, at this time, occurring. And once again, I am not accusing you of anything. Your own words indict your actions. Not mine. nableezy - 20:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree with the keep arguments. Palestinian Bedouin is not a POV fork. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nom is adopting a singularly unhelpful approach to the case per above. This should be kept and any content issues resolved in the customary fashion.Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Most Eligible Bachelor#Music. The creator of the article turned it into a redirect less than a day after nomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guche Gulabi[edit]

Guche Gulabi (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 film song that does not meet WP:NSINGLE. It lacks significant coverage from reliable sources and most of the content is routine/non-RS coverage. May be redirected to section Most Eligible Bachelor (film)#Music. Ab207 (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Whoever created the page already turned it into a redirect. It does fail WP:NSONG. SBKSPP (talk) 06:36, 28 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 13:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ronny Kreher[edit]

Ronny Kreher (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)

Amateur footballer whose sole claim to notability is having been subbed in for a ten-minute-appearance in a 2008 3. Liga game, per his fussballdaten profile. As per WP:WINNEROUTCOMES, this is not enough to scrape by, since nothing close to WP:GNG-level coverage on this individual turns up. AngryHarpy‍^talk 13:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 13:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 13:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 13:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 13:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably delete There is List of Dynamo Dresden players however it doesn't look like he qualifies to be on the list. Per nomination, the player fails basic WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL. Geschichte (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom and without prejudice to change vote to Keep if significant coverage is later found. For my search, I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV for the subject, noting that someone with searching skills for German sources might uncover things I was unable to. Until that point, my vote stands as delete. GauchoDude (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPUSA v Komming Knitting[edit]

UPUSA v Komming Knitting (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)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, lacks references and relies on a single primary source. Whilst Google returns several seemingly good results, closer inspection shows these to be no more than passing mentions, and the sources are usually more focused on south African labour law in general. Mako001 (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 13:13, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warrandyte Cricket Club[edit]

Warrandyte Cricket 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)

Non-notable suburban amateur cricket team that only plays against other local teams in a certain district of Melbourne. There is at the the Victorian Premier Cricket and the Victorian SubDistrict Cricket Association above the loca league this one plays in. No noteworthy achievements, the unsourced table below indicates some wins in C/D/E or worse grades in sublocal competitions. No significant independent sources, just random score listings and phonebook listing Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is sustained long term coverage of the subject. I have not checked these but there are potentially over 5,000 references available here. The significant majority of these will be routine and-or minor and some not relevant, but even if only 1% are good references, there will be more than sufficient to support GNG. Looks like insufficient BEFORE was done. Aoziwe (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Does fail WP:NCRIC, but there seems to be enough sourcing for a GNG pass. While some sourcing will be trivial mentions there's does look to be enough there. They also had an Australian international play for them. Article does need a cleanup though, with lots of unsourced information and fancruft. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:59, 15 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) 07:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yes, there's a lot of writing, but there are few references which establish historical notability in lieu of not meeting the club requirements of WP:NCRIC. StickyWicket (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not seeing the Trove search by Aoziwe proving there is indepth coverage of this club. In the absence of actual examples of reliable sources, I am leaning to delete. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm finding a lot of articles along the lines of [4] [5] and [6]. While the articles themselves aren't great, the club has evidently been documented regularly over a long time. NemesisAT (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:31, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blom v Brown[edit]

Blom v Brown (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. Based on a single primary source. Google only shows up no secondary sources. May even overlap with BLP since it is likely that both parties of the case are still alive. Mako001 (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 11:37, 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. Fenix down (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Tunisian Super Cup[edit]

2020–21 Tunisian Super Cup (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)

Already draftified twice, a third time would very definitely be edit warring. There is nothing here except the shell, husk, of an article. The reader cannot even tell if this competition is notable. WP:GNG failure Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tunisia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As a football fan, I can tell you that it's a very notable and popular cup game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.9 (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As a football fan, I can tell you that to people in Tunisia, it as least as "notable" as the Superbowl Final is in the USA.88.105.14.76 (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Comments I fail to understand this nominators AfD, this cup competition is the second highest after the Tunisian Cup (Coupe de Tunisie), there are a number of sources on the web about this competition that can easily be added. Should easily pass WP:GNG. [7], plus lots more citations to be found. Govvy (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Govvy. GiantSnowman 13:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the tournament is the same notability as FA Community Shield or any of the other Super cups listed on that page, most of which have dedicated season article. Needs improving and better sourcing rather than deleting. Sure sources will exist (albeit probably in French and Arabic). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - The article does not speak for itself and does not establish notability. If an editor improves it in the next six days, a Heywood close may be possible; otherwise needs to be improved in draft space. Common knowledge that the subject is notable is an argument to avoid; provide evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well if we had a native Arabic speaker, they might be able to find sources. But draftifying something purely because something doesn't have many English-language sources, without having checked the languages of the country in question, seems like a WP:BIAS to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment another good English language source: [8]. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply @Joseph2302: Umm, I've already posted that link above, which I've added into the article!! I was trying to put the teams together in my sandbox, but messed it up a bit. Govvy (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Govvy.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ex parte Van Heerden[edit]

Ex parte Van Heerden (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. Based on a single primary source. Google only shows up results for Wikipedia and it's mirrors, and no secondary sources. Another more recent case seems far more notable. Mako001 (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The only source cited is the legal decision itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Concern. In the past 3 days, the nominator has brought more than 50 articles started by User:Robertson-Glasgow either to AfD or through proposed deletion, and is, essentially, systematically destroying their whole corpus. It's certainly possible that all the articles are problematic, and it's certainly possible that the user has left Wikipedia; but I'm concerned that all these nominations risk overwhelming Robertson-Glasgow's capacity to respond, and indeed, overwhelming our deletion processes as well. I can't imagine that all these articles will get thorough AfDs from people capable of reading the sources in Afrikaans. When there's such a large number of cases, I wonder if there shouldn't be a different/better way to handle them?—S Marshall T/C 18:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I found some sources discussing a case of the same name related to COVID-19 lockdown[9] but only this source that briefly discusses the 1923 case. That said, there might be coverage in non-digitized print sources. (t · c) buidhe 05:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. In response to S Marshall's concerns - these articles have glaring problems, and WP:REFUND should be allowed if someone will do that work. Also: a lot of these read like copyvios, it seems that they are very liberally quoting from the court decisions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ex parte Henning[edit]

Ex parte Henning (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)

Legal case that fails WP:GNG. Based on a single primary source. Google only turns up WP and it's mirrors. Mako001 (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The only source cited is the legal decision itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:29, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ex parte Goldman[edit]

Ex parte Goldman (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)

Legal case which fails WP:GNG, based on a single primary source. Google only turns up results for Wikipedia and it's mirrors, then loses relevance without finding any secondary sources. No case to keep this one. Mako001 (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The only source cited is the legal decision itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Dufek[edit]

Joshua Dufek (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 significant coverage in reliable sources. Most citations in the article come from Formula Scout, an outlet that has been considered questionable in past AfD discussions. The article fails WP:GNG, WP:YOUNGATH, and WP:NMOTORSPORT. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Won't vote as I'm undecided: Dufek hasn't done anything other than F4 yet, but is a former F1 junior and is poised to make the step up to FRECA next season. What I'd like to know is when, why and by whom Formula Scout was considered "questionable". I know for a fact that they're actively in the paddocks of most feeder series, and their work is independent, neutral and reliable. If anything, the problem with this article is it relies too much on one source. But more sources can be found easily with a quick search. MSport1005 (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There are some mentions of Dufek in other sources, but they are not what I would call reliable or significant. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, I don't follow Dufek at all so I'm not familiar with his career trajectory, but as it stands he doesn't have the coverage or notability to warrant an article. Looking at FRECA season articles, most drivers are in blue, but looking at those articles it seems like many shouldn't be.

In several recent AfDs I have been involved in, Formula Scout has been questioned because of its highly specialized nature. I do not disagree that they are a reliable and useful source, but I do not believe they can be used to establish notability because their entire modus operandi is to cover obscure and otherwise unimportant series. Further, looking at their homepage (which is something I do regularly since I follow several junior series), I would say a lot of their coverage is borderline routine. Therefore I struggle to understand how it can be used to establish notability, and its ability to do so must be called into question. Perhaps it was a poor way of wording it, but I am willing to challenge Formula Scout's use in this context. To me, this is WP:UNDUE on a larger scale: allowing Formula Scout to be used to establish notability places undue importance on their view as a small, incredibly niche, but still reliable publication. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in Formula Scout may contribute towards the notability of the series that these drivers compete in, but the coverage of the drivers themselves is nearly always WP:ROUTINE and I have serious doubts that most single-seater drivers below FIA Formula 2 Championship level are typically notable for more than one event based upon what coverage I've seen. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say the modus operandi of Formula Scout is "covering obscure and otherwise unimportant series"—some might be, but FRECA or F3, let alone F2 or Indy Lights, are hardly unimportant. But I do see your point, their articles are valid purely as a source, but are not enough to establish notability. As for Dufek, I also feel like he may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, as I stated a few weeks ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Bearman, but I remain undecided. MSport1005 (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Having participated in the Italian F4 Championship should give him so notability though his sources are just passing mentions. I will leave it for the closing admin to decide. Keriwands (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC) — Keriwands (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of NagalimNE (talk · contribs). [reply]

• Strongly disagree. F4 is an amateur series for drivers only just starting out in single seaters. Very, very few F4 drivers have articles since the series is not professional, let alone important in the world of motorsport. Participation in the series does not meet the criteria set out in WP:NMOTORSPORT. References to Dufek are passing mentions because of this and therefore fall under routine coverage. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As always, I have serious ethical concerns about the number of articles being created about very young racing drivers who compete in exceedingly minor series. Coverage in Formula Scout is almost always WP:ROUTINE so far as the competitors involved are concerned, and this case does not appear particularly different. Formula Four drivers are not public figures, and typically are known by anyone for at most one event (winning some incredibly minor racing championship). In the longer term, WP:BLPs like this are unlikely to be maintained unless the driver in question goes on to find notability elsewhere, which we simply cannot predict, and as such may become an easy target for vandals or the like. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Like I said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Bearman, he's a clear fail of WP:GNG as there is no multiple significant coverage of him in reliable sources, aside from WP:ROUTINE coverage of signings, passing mentions and blogs. The best I was able to find was a paragraph about his former results + a sentence about nationality of his and his parents [10]. Dufek might overcome WP:TOOSOON as he steps up in the Formula ladder, but his F4 results are so uninspiring (4th in F4 Spain is a bit misleading as he was outclassed by most of his rookie teammates). We'll see I guess. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as I said in the previous discussion, all sources for Durek that I could find were routine coverage or press releases, neither of which can count towards establishing notability. A7V2 (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per HumanBodyPiloter5's citation of WP:MINORS and WP:ROUTINE. Formula 4 is not a professional championship; we do not have articles on Junior B hockey players, etc. -^{"Ghost of Dan Gurney"} 18:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Emerson Fittipaldi#Family. ✗plicit 10:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson Fittipaldi Jr.[edit]

Emerson Fittipaldi Jr. (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)

Minimal significant coverage, and what exists is either WP:ROUTINE reporting in highly specialized sources or in relation to his father, so he does not pass WP:YOUNGATH. Notability is not inherited, and the article makes no claim to significance. Sources do not appear to exist that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NMOTORSPORT. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MSport1005 (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, and make the title a redirect to Emerson Fittipaldi - Notability is not inherited, but I believe the fact that his child has competed in extremely-minor motorsport events has received just enough coverage to warrant a passing mention in the "personal life" section of Emerson Fittipaldi's article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• He's already mentioned in § Family, but I've added a line saying he finished third in Danish F4. Quite hard to find a source even for that simple claim. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Emerson Fittipaldi#Family - WP:TOOSOON for his own article. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Emerson Fittipaldi#Family where he is duly mentioned. Not independently notable. A7V2 (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updesh Rana[edit]

Updesh Rana (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:ANYBIO, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Videos are not considered reliable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This person seems to be notable for only one event which doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. --Kzkzb (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. The coverage is not upto the mark. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Venkat TL (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly non-notable. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 10:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Classical language[edit]

Classical language (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 is a content fork with Literary language - a reliable source can be found for almost any literary language calling it a classical language so the definition is redundant - which can be demonstrated by the list of articles on this page. I suggest redirecting this page to Literary language and merging in the Edward Sapir quote on a header section treating the term "classical language". - car chasm (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. - car chasm (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. - car chasm (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The concepts are really not the same. A literary language is a somewhat standard written language which people use to write literature in, while Classical language should have a more selective definition (much more selective in the cases of languages like Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Chinese, and Arabic)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per AnonMoos (talk · contribs); Latin is a classical language, while French is a literary language. Elemimele (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Article gives the reader an idea about the antiquity of the earliest text in a language.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In my opinion, there is enough discussion and info about classical languages to have an article, now is the distinction between a literary language and "classical language" arbitrary? Maybe but there is most certainly enough citations for this article, it is the first hyperlink from Latin so it clearly has a very important bearing of importance. Des Vallee (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AnonMoos.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Boutwell[edit]

Richard Boutwell (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. No significant coverage in independent sources found. Being a general is not considered sufficient for notability in the absence of coverage in RS. (t · c) buidhe 06:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The Greenville Standard is his hometown paper and had a fairly detailed article about him in 2017 when he was promoted to BG. There are a number of articles about various highlights in his career, new promotions and postings, and a more detailed article in the Las Vegas Sun in 2014, as well as this article in the Greenville Advocate. The Greenville ones are local papers to be sure, but there is a fair bit available from the USAF in his bio here (I know there is an argument here about what constitutes independence from the subject, but the USAF is not controlled by Boutwell, so what it publishes about him is at arm's length from he himself - ie the subject) and USAF/aviation-related journals and magazines, as well as snippets on career highlights in various news articles. I would have thought there was a potential B-Class article here with a bit of effort. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to be enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep fails WP:BASIC on existing sources which are PRIMARY in that USAF is writing about one of its own. Just being a General is not a pass on notability. Stories found by Peacemaker67 just barely bring this up to BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 14:25, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rusif Huseynov[edit]

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

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

So I came across this on the Turkish Wikipedia, where it's currently also nominated for deletion. The versions in other languages have been created in early-October by the same person, and the articles are an exact copy of each other.

The problem is that this article cites a shit ton of sources, none of which actually contribute to WP:GNG. Most are published on websites which he works for, so these are not independent. The half of the sources are his own news articles anyways. A beforehand search doesn't result in much either. Pretty obvious attempt of refbombing their way into having an article.

Also, why must every article he wrote be cited in the "Works" section? None of these are notable on their own. This whole thing kinda feels like cross-wiki promo. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Albert G. Miller[edit]

Albert G. Miller (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. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources found. Being a general is not considered sufficient for notability in the absence of coverage in RS. (t · c) buidhe 06:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to be enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. What is this? Some sort of campaign to get generals deleted? Serving Wikipedia in any way? I think not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BASIC, sources are largely PRIMARY and so do not count towards notability. Just being a General isn't a pass on notability, I thought we had established that. Mztourist (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find much of anything on this guy beyond what the USAF says about him, which aren't PRIMARY BTW, the question about them is whether they are sufficiently independent of Miller. Personally I think they are (someone at USAF has had to look at his personnel record and put together a summary of his career to date), but given he doesn't meet BASIC because there aren't multiple reliable sources, it's a moot point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies, when I said PRIMARY, I meant not independent. Mztourist (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No significant independent coverage (USAF press releases and non-scholarly bios don't count, in my view) that would establish notability. The aircommando.org link doesn't even appear to mention the article subject. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage. I took out two sources as they don't mention Miller at all...both appear to relate to a different officer entirely (one with Special Operations Wing background). Intothatdarkness 19:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage available. Does not meet notability guideline. Mommmyy (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Dychtwald[edit]

Ken Dychtwald (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)

Not a notable author. References are from paid editing. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it's all really thin and as far as I'm concerned the subject doesn't really pass the GNG. I just blocked three editors in this history for UPE. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:48, 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. I find DGG's comments the most persuasive, and sufficiently supported by others. Daniel (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tammarrian Rogers[edit]

Tammarrian Rogers (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)

mnon notable and promotional, based on PR sources. Forbes 50 top anything isa promotional gimmick like all similar lists, and to write wikipedia articles on the basis of being listed there is naïve.

Ref 1, barely mentions her in a general article. Ref 2 is Forbes promoting its own lists, Ref .3 is a one paragraph highly promotional quote, but worth reading to see what people will say of themselves. Ref 4. is an interview where she says whatever she wants to in response to leading questions --and there's an advertising tie in--her firm is listing its jobs on the site. 5 & 6 I cannot see., but from the titles 5 is a promotional interview, and 6 is trivial.. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per analysis of sources above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Veryw weak keep I put this up for deletion the first time, but I think we are JUST over the hump now - mostly based on the addition of ref 5, which is here. That's actually a reasonably in-depth profile. Ref 6 is here and apparently largely paywalled - unclear how much substance it adds. The rest is admittedly fluff and passing mentions. I think this is in discretionary range now, possible just on the okay side. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Elmidae and 5. This has more. 6 doesn't add much: "Tammarrian Rogers, a software engineering director for Snap, the camera and social media company, ... spoke at a webinar titled “Finding, Recruiting and Retaining the Right Talent,” presented by InsurTech Indenseo in April. Rogers, who worked at Microsoft for 23 years prior to leading several engineering teams at Snap, said that young people with technology skills need to find a meaningful connection to what they’re working on..." but 5 is great. Being a sought-after panelist [11][12][13] supports NCREATIVE 1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." HouseOfChange (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Now that I can see #5, it's a typical Lifestyle section article in a newspaper, relying almost entirely on what she says about herself, supplemented by some very uncritical puffery. And I remind everyone that placement of a 50 under 50 list or the like is merely a promotional device--and everything said in such articles should be considered unreliable, being almost entirely derived from the person themselves, of their press agent's promotional puffery. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mostly insufficient references. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Cochrane[edit]

Nathan Cochrane (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)

Journalist who fails WP:JOURNALIST. Article is unsourced and appears promotional in nature. Cjhard (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cjhard (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. In my WP:BEFORE, I found nothing significant about this bio. This one is well-detailed though, but there nothing else to pass WP:GNG. I would lean delete. 167.98.47.71 (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Thin sourcing. Fails GNG. LondonIP (talk) 19:03, 28 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.