< November 27	November 29 >

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

The result was merge to Build Back Better Plan. Daniel (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructure policy of the Joe Biden administration[edit]

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

Entirety of contents are already included in Build Back Better Plan, Build Back Better Act, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and Environmental policy of the Joe Biden administration, all of which have much more information that is better written than this article. Bill Williams 20:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this page is outdated and redundant, and future infrastructure policies can be better addressed in articles about the specific legislation. Carguychris (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything that is not redundant to Build Back Better Plan. I wouldn't be against deletion as the specific infrastructure plan was established in Build Back Better Plan. There is the Build Back Better Act which is the initial action of the plan – the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is the actual action of establishing new infrastructure and transportation policies. I'm suggesting the redirect to the plan as it seems to be more about the overall policy during Biden's term. – The Grid (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by User:The Grid. This article is unnecessary (and a potential content fork) because the plan already has a name and appropriate article (Build Back Better Plan). If nothing needs to be merged, this title seems a possible search term and might be redirected to the same location. BusterD (talk) 23:03, 29 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 00:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hutchinson lecture[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. Cannot find significant coverage in sources independent of the topic. (t · c) buidhe 23:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 23:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might make more sense to cover an annual lecture series in an article on the person it was named for, or the society that hosts it. XOR'easter (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That could be reasonable but at present I don't see a related article that it could be merge/redirected to. (t · c) buidhe 03:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per currently available sourcing. Notability certainly not demonstrated in the article, and I can't find substantial further coverage either. Hutchinson himself seems to be a likely NPROF candidate, but in absence of that article as a merge target, this should probably be deleted. (As an aside, I am finding at least two other and unrelated "Hutchinson lectures" [1][2](in Economics and Pharmacy) that are longer-running and might have a better claim to the primary topic - disambiguation would be needed.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that Hutchinson himself is a likely candidate for passing WP:PROF, though soil mechanics and civil engineering aren't my field, and he was active just long enough ago that online material might be tricky to dig up. I'd encourage the creator of this page to start a draft biography of him at Draft:John N. Hutchinson; information about this lecture series could be included there, e.g., as part of a "Legacy" section. XOR'easter (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From looking over this it seems like an argument could made for John Hutchinson to have an article, but the Hutchinson lecture clearly isn't notable enough on it's own to warrant one. There's no reason it can't be mentioned in an article for John Hutchinson if one is ever created though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:05, 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 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 00:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Musée Prive de Ndouci[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Could not find significant coverage, even a plain Google search does not reveal much. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 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. Per consensus, WP:BLPCRIME violation. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of suspected perpetrators of crimes identified with GEDmatch[edit]

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

Having considered the recent discussion of this article, I see two reasons why this article should not exist as it is. In the first place, as pointed out in the discussion, this is an attractive nuisance for WP:BLPCRIME violations. Second, the notion of such a list is a case of WP:RECENTISM. It seems quite likely that this will fairly quickly become routine (or get banned), so while one could reasonably hold the first examples notable in some sense, what has now (judging from the number of entries) started to become commonplace is no longer notable, anymore than the use of fingerprinting, telegraph, police cars, or any other such technology remains eternally noteworthy. Mangoe (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~Rename - Many articles attract nuisance policy violators. That's no reason to delete an article that is notable and well sourced. There are other ways to deal with policy violators. Regarding WP:RECENTISM, we are not in the business of predicting the future. At this time it's not commonplace, and we don't know if or when it will be. So we deal with that if the size of the article becomes unmanageable. Sundayclose (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, you are predicting the future, by saying that it will forever be notable to record this. Second, well-sourcing is not the issue: identifying people simply because they are suspects is. Mangoe (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say it will be "forever notable". I said it's notable now. I didn't say that well-sourcing is the issue here. I said there's no need to delete an article that is notable and well sourced simply because it attracts policy violators. I will agree to renaming the article to "List of people convicted of crimes identified with GEDmatch". That takes care of the BLP problem if it's enforced, which should be the case for all articles. Sundayclose (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sourcing supports that the topic "list of suspects (or people convicted) using GEDmatch" is notable. It's just articles, often reprinted press releases, saying it was used. Just because a method is notable does not mean a list of every time it's used is notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please tone down the hyperbole. It doesn't help your argument. It's simply not true that none of the sourcing supports conviction. Now you are the one diverting the argument to sourcing. If the title is changed, we can remove the entries that are not adequately sourced. Look, you are perfectly entitled to nominate for deletion. But it's not necessary to pummel those who oppose your nomination with arguments that aren't related to your reasons for nomination. If you continue that it's considered WP:DISRUPTIVE. Let the consensus process proceed. Sundayclose (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't nominate it, and it was a single reply. What I said is that none of the sources establish the topic as a whole as notable, not that there were no sources for convictions. Perhaps you're conflating my statements with Mangoe's? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you're right, I carelessly didn't notice who made the edit. Apologies. But my comment about sourcing still stands. It's not necessary that the notability of an article be established by a source. There are guidelines and policies to determine notability; or it's done by consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge BLP compliant material into articles dealing with the cases or the companies that did the investigations. Maintaining a list of suspects identified with an investigatory method will never be BLP compliant, and such a list isn't encyclopedic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost the entire article is a WP:BLPCRIME violation. To the extent there is appropriate content, it should be included in the relevant blue-linked articles. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a general violation of BLPCRIME, but after a TNT approach, would be appropriate to recreate based strictly on those convicted of crimes due to GEDmatch. --Masem (t) 13:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: In general I agree with recreating with only those convicted. But instead of TNT, is there a problem with removing those who are not reliably sourced as convicted, then renaming the article? That's what I proposed above. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, if you look at the article now, you'll see how little of the content was compliant. At this point I don't think there is enough to support a list as it would be easy enough to merge the remaining prose into the related articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the relevant content also seems to already be summarized in lists in the primary GEDmatch article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:12, 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 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 00:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Harley[edit]

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

Not much evidence of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:32, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partners in Action[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; I found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing found on a WP:BEFORE except for TV Guide. Geschichte (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything either - the most I found was a mention in a book where it was named in passing as a film with zero advertising budget put out by a company that churned out similar no budget films. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:56, 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 delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Defence Housing Authority, Lahore[edit]

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

Highly promotional article about a non-notable housing development in Lahore, Pakistan. The article has been skillfully WP:REFBOMBed with 21 sources, exactly zero of which establish the notability of this housing development per WP:GNG. A brief analysis of the sources in the article:

Primary source
Promotional article on a Pakistani real estate website
Facebook page
Facebook page
Article about a tattoo shop that happens to be in the area. The article is primarily about the tattoo shop, only mentioning the housing development in passing.
Promotional article on a Pakistani real estate website
Promotional article on a Pakistani real estate website
Promotional article on a Pakistani real estate website
Exact same source as #6
Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
Advertisement for a nearby educational facility

Fails WP:N. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 03:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 03:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment there is a misunderstanding about articles like this, resulting from language differences. The same thing is happening at Askari,_Lahore. These are not housing associations, or housing authorities in the sense that the terms are used in the US or UK. They are basically regions of a city. They should be assessed as locations in which people live, not as companies or organisations. I don't know what makes a region of a city sufficiently notable to have an article, but since we accept articles on random uninhabited crossroads in the US provided someone can dredge up a newspaper that indicates there was once a house there, it seems a bit arbitrary to refuse an article on a thriving suburb of a major city. On the other hand, these suburbs tend to generate an awful lot of adverts for property-for-sale, and newspaper articles that mention them in passing as the location where something happened, but very little else, so I'm not surprised the referencing is awful. Elemimele (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GEOLAND. Legally recognized places are usually presumed to be notable, even if they have little to no population. Populated places without legal recognition (including housing developments) are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with WP:GNG. I cannot find any evidence that this is a legally recognized place. Assuming that it lacks legal recognition, the provided sources certainly do not pass WP:GNG. WP:NPLACE has more info. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 07:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed to prove notability ... just Promotional article on a Pakistani real estate website and most of links are dead Wikisuper945 Talk Here 02:15, 12 November 2021 (IST)
Keep; I'm striking my previous comment because despite the ambiguity between the name of the organisation that ran the development, and the subsequent development as a place where people live, in this case there is copious independent, in-depth coverage of the DHA (in the sense of a developer rather than the development) and its activities, as well as firm evidence that news sources regard "DHA Lahore" as a genuine location. In fact the faintest attempt at a BEFORE would have uncovered this lot. Most of it is extremely negative about the DHA, so the article needs a massive re-write, and isn't going to be popular with DHA's developers, but AfD is famously not clean-up. We don't delete articles about subjects where sources are clearly available:
ANI news having an in-depth moan at army land-grabbing under the auspices of the DHA [[3]]

The international News, Pakistan, similarly reporting in depth on a high-court case concerning the DHA's activities in Lahore [[4]]

Dawn newspaper on the same theme: [[5]]

Another newspaper's report on the organisers of DHA attempting to coerce residents of the Lahore DHA area into boycotting Dawn newspaper for its reporting of the London Bridge knife attacks: [[6]]

same story reported differently by different people at [[7]]

the Friday times reporting, in depth, no how the DHA Lahore project got nicked off a previous independent housing association: [[8]]

Evidence that DHA Lahore is seen by local media as a defined region in which people live and do things (in this case, unfortunately, strangle people) [[9]]

Another example from 24newshd.tv: [[10]]

Bol news on the same theme: [[11]]

Elemimele (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources establish notability per WP:GNG. I'll explain why for each of the sources that you just posted above:

This source is primarily about the real estate development company, Defence Housing Authority, not the housing development, Defence Housing Authority, Lahore.
This source is primarily about the real estate development company, Defence Housing Authority, not the housing development, Defence Housing Authority, Lahore.
A very short article that proves that the housing development exists, but does not provide significant coverage as required by GNG.
This source is primarily about a local newspaper, not the housing development.
This 4-sentence article is primarily about a local newspaper, not the housing development.
This source is primarily about the real estate development company, Defence Housing Authority, not the housing development, Defence Housing Authority, Lahore.
This source is primarily about a crime committed in the neighborhood, not the housing development itself.
This source is primarily about a crime committed in the neighborhood, not the housing development itself.
This source is primarily about a crime committed in the neighborhood, not the housing development itself.

Again, assuming that this housing development is not a legally recognized place, it needs to satisfy GNG. GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sources you provided absolutely prove that the housing development exists. But, proving existence is different that proving notability. To establish notability, you'd need to provide multiple, reliable, independent sources that are primarily about the housing development itself, that describe its history and significance in detail. None of the sources in the article or in this discussion meet that requirement. The real estate development company that built this housing development is a different topic than the housing development itself. That company already has its own article: Defence Housing Authority. Some of the sources you provided above would certainly establish the notability of that company. But, they don't establish the notability of the housing development, which is the subject of this article. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to decide what the article is supposed to be about. If it's about a region of Lahore, my reply is this: the last 3 sources indicate nothing more than that local people and news sources regard "DHA Lahore" as the identity of a legitimate suburb. The debate is whether a suburb is sufficiently important to be notable. Brooklyn is; I'm quite happy to accept that DHA Lahore isn't. If the article is supposed to be about the DHA as an organisation that builds estates, specifically its activities in Lahore (and the article currently begins "The Defence Housing Authority, Lahore (DHA Lahore) (Urdu: اختیاریہَ دفاعی اقامت کاری ، لاہور‎) is a housing society located in Lahore") then the remainder of the articles all relate not to DHAs across Pakistan but DHA Lahore. I checked each one. All go into the DHA Lahore estate's development in depth (i.e. DHA Lahore is the main subject of every article). The two that relate to the newspaper are not primarily about the newspaper (that is a misrepresentation of them); they describe how DHA Lahore (management) attempted to suppress the newspaper in the DHA Lahore development, reflecting far more on the developers than the newspaper. I'm not going to argue this indefinitely, I couldn't care two hoots whether the article is kept or deleted, but deletion should be on good grounds, not mere determination to delete. I agree that the current article is definitely lopsided and promotional, and therefore problematic. Elemimele (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, sources that establish the notability of the housing development would cover things like the history of the development, how it was designed and built, its significance within Lahore, its unique geographical features, its notable residents, notable parks or monuments in the area, etc., etc., etc. This article is not about the company that built the development; we already have a separate article on them. You're correct that many of the sources you posted absolutely provide evidence that the development exists, and even evidence that people commonly refer to this region as DHA Lahore. However, that is not evidence that this region is legally recognized as DHA Lahore, nor is it evidence that this region of the city is notable per WP:GNG, in my opinion. Others can examine these sources and decide for themselves. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough! I'll leave my "vote" but I'm fine about being over-ruled, I'm still a beginner at this! It's certainly true that the sources end up falling in one of a handful of rather sad categories: scandals about the DHA developers; newspaper reports of crimes committed in the areas; non-independent items on contracts/planning; and copious estate agents' adverts. Elemimele (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails notability guidelines.T v x1 10:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One can see in the 'See also' section of the above article, there are many large suburban neighbourhood towns with similar names in almost all major cities of Pakistan. To help solve the confusion around misnaming this heavily populated town – and it is surely a large middle-class town locality, NOT a real estate development entity. Most people in Pakistan know this, not to mention the big populations that actually live in these towns all across Pakistan. I just now found many newspaper articles to help support the Notability of this town. I'll add these newspaper references tomorrow morning, if given a chance. Ngrewal1 (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's sometimes amusing and surprising to me, how these language issues or misnaming a town by town authorities whose primary language is not English, and it all snowballs into big discussions such as above on Wikipedia. Ngrewal1 (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added 6 new references today to the above article, removed all promotional websites and their references and cleaned up the article. Now it has References from a News agency from India, 3 major newspapers of Pakistan and 1 reference from the Government of Punjab, Pakistan. Used some newspaper references listed above by Elemimele also. Passes WP:GEOLAND now. In my view, plenty of third party independent newspaper references to support its Notability. Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete analysis of sources by Scottywong prove that WP:ORG is not met. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Established source analyis show its clearcut. scope_creep^Talk 01:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But it's NOT an ORGANIZATION, it's a TOWN!!! Different criteria of Notability apply here as I have explained above. Similar town names are scattered all across major cities of Pakistan. The misnaming of the town is misleading people to think it's an organization. See Google maps of the town, then there is no doubt. Easily passes WP:GEOLAND. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article already has a Google Map of this town as one of its References. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show evidence of the legal recognition of this area as a town, then I agree, this will easily pass WP:GEOLAND. That evidence has not been found. A Google Maps link is not evidence that this is a legally recognized place. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if this were an organization, the coverage of the Supreme Court of Pakistan ordering it to turn over housing plans indicates that this is a significant entity. If we're treating this as a housing development authority, it's an NGO rather than a town. And, in that case, WP:NGO indicates that it's likely notable anyway; there appears to be independent coverage from reliable sources, the organization seems to be nationally well-known with factors that have resulted in it receiving widespread attention (it ain't every day that a supreme court case happens, nor that it gets all the coverage it does). If it is indeed a municipality (or an unincorporated community with legal recognition), then this would be a simple pass of WP:GEOLAND. In either case, it appears notable to me, so I believe that the article should be kept. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article on the overall organization that creates these housing developments: Defence Housing Authority. That article has not been nominated for deletion. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial coverage that easily fails WP:ORG and WP:GEOLAND. And the fact that they've interacted with the court system is of course not a sign of notability. Star Garnet (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Shortcut
- WP:GEOLAND

"Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history".

DHA Towns all across major cities of Pakistan have a long history behind them starting in the 1960s. Significant news coverage by a news agency in India, three major newspapers of Pakistan and a Punjab Government website are significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Since the above nomination, the article is much improved now.Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You keep calling this a "town", but there is no indication that this is anything more than a large housing development or an informal neighborhood within the city of Lahore. A town is a place that is legally recognized. It has distinct boundaries that are defined in law. If it is a populated place, it probably has some kind of local governmental structure. Therefore, assuming that this is not a legally recognized state/city/town/village/settlement in Pakistani law (and I've seen no evidence that it is), then per WP:GEOLAND, it is not presumed to be notable and it must be shown that there are sources that pass GNG, which there clearly aren't. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 00:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the news coverage at the article shows me that it's an illegal 'large housing development'. How can we assume that it's illegal? As Wiki editors, none of us have the resources to produce or are expected to show legal documents to prove that everything is legal? We can only go by the news coverage on it, that's all. Can we leave it up to the relevant Wiki staff to make a judgement on it? Thanks Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:52, 9 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 merge to Las Hermanas (TV series). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Las Hermanas episodes[edit]

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

No need for a separate article for episodes, when Las Hermanas (TV series) isn't a big article to begin with TheHotwiki (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You nominated the article for deletion three hours and 36 minutes after it was created. You could've just redirected it, or tagged it with a merge discussion banner. Please close this and do a merge discussion. Or contact the guy who created it and ask them to just post the information in the article instead, then tag it for speedy delete. Dream Focus 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dream Focus: I agree. A merger discussion is a better option and more necessary than taking it to deletion. The nom must've been insecure whenever someone created a separate article for a list of episodes. He could've let that be for a week or a couple of weeks before taking it for a merger discussion. I wouldn't mind if this was created. SBKSPP (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to series for now, if everyone else wants to create more work for this editor. List of episodes aren't always needed for single season shows, but this one appears reasonably well sourced and in line with what we accept from other shows. If the show bombs, then sure, it can be merged back into the parent article, but this seems, per DF, to be premature. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Episode list can easily be incorporated into the main article, which will avoid WP:FORK issues. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens's argument. Since this was created 3 weeks after its premiere, it's not WP:TOOSOON to create a separate article for an episode list like this. SBKSPP (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above. I created the list on the 3rd week of the series' airing and it was even reviewed a few hours after it was created. It seems to be well-sourced. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Superastig: You were told before not to create a separate article for episodes, when the article for the series isn't that huge to begin with. You can see how short the article for Las Hermanas (TV series), and you could have created a section in that article for the episodes there. Which you obviously didn't even try to do. Why do you insist making a separate article for episodes?.TheHotwiki (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hotwiki, it's no big deal if an article for a certain series isn't that huge to begin with. Besides, this is a weekday series, not weekly. It has no fixed number of episodes. Therefore, it's never (will never and still never be) a sin to make a separate article for episode lists for such. I created the list on the 3rd week of the series' airing since I believe there would be enough sufficient sources by that time. Even if you throw hissy fits about separate episode lists all day long, I really know when to (and not to) create one. So, don't bother arguing with me. My "keep" stands no matter what. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Superastig: Again, you are making a separate article for episodes when the article for the series, isn't huge to begin with. The series haven't even had 300 episodes and yet, you already made a separate article. You have done this in plenty of times to a lot of Philippine TV series,and some of those articles were merged into the article of the series. And you choose to do this again. Also, the references in the article are mostly first party sources.TheHotwiki (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hotwiki, like I said, it's NO BIG DEAL if I create a separate article for a certain series. Even a user created several episode lists way before I stepped into this. I see nothing wrong with that. So, even if you throw hissy fits about it all day long, it will never be a big deal at all. I can merge them only when it has reached at most 40 episodes. There is really nothing wrong with creating a separate article for a certain weekday series. Everyone, including me, has the right to do so. I really know when to (and not to) create one. And it's true no matter what. So, BE IT. This conversation is over. I'm not gonna waste my time with this useless argument ever again. My "keep" stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Its a big deal, when an article for a series is small, for a separate article for episodes to be created. I'm not asking to you understand, as frankly you just ignored what I told about you many months ago. It is also the main reason why I nominated this for deletion, rather than talked to you about it again. TheHotwiki (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Can I also point out, that @Superastig:, have made an list of episodes article for To Have & to Hold (Philippine TV series) and The World Between Us (Philippine TV series) recently - List of To Have & to Hold episodes and List of The World Between Us episodes. The article for those shows are also aren't long enough, to warrant a separate article of episodes.TheHotwiki (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: That's right. Who cares if it's a small article to begin with? If it is announced that it would have 40 episodes or less, it's pointless to create a separate one. But in this case, it's way too early to tell when the series will end. With the factors you mentioned, I definitely agree that there's nothing wrong with creating a separate article for episode lists like this. So it's pointless to make this a big deal. SBKSPP (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you two read Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline. A lot of these list of episodes specifically for Philippine TV series, got away in having their own article, when the article for the parent series isn't a long article to begin with. A Wikipedia guideline for article size wasn't made to be ignored. TheHotwiki (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hotwiki: Will do. But I believe Astig has read that before. SBKSPP (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. He/she could have made a section for episodes in Las Hermanas (TV series), instead of creating a separate article for episodes right away. This could be said to other articles he created (seen from his or her user page).TheHotwiki (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hotwiki: Don't doubt. As of recent, he never created a separate episode list for GMA shows right away. I don't see him do a separate episode list for a weekend show like Puto (TV series). I agree with him that it's not a big deal. Nothing good will happen if you make that a big deal. I see no problem with what he's doing. So you have no choice but to let that user be. SBKSPP (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete More than half the references in the article are facebook references. scope_creep^Talk 09:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact only three references out the 37 are valid, reliable sources. It is a case WP:TNT. scope_creep^Talk 09:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3 reliable sources is enough to keep an article. bop34 • talk • contribs 13:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ScopeCreep; not only stop with the Facebook references, but stop using Nielsen ratings not provided by a reliable source! It is copyright infringement (the Facebook page's description reads "NOT THE OFFICIAL PAGE OF AGB NIELSEN", and we have no idea how they get the numbers). I don't know how many times I've told this to the Filipino side of WPTV, but we've already been down this road with Nielsen a few times before, and eventually they're going to contact WMF legal again and say they've had enough. Nate • (chatter) 21:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Copyrighted ratings are now removed and are not to be re-added in either this or a merged article without a proper official source. I think many of us who spend hours writing articles and copyright have had enough of forum and Facebook-sourced items which are of small interest to begin with such as nightly television ratings. Nate • (chatter) 02:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Las Hermanas (TV series), which is presently a stub article. This will improve and expand this suggested merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Las Hermanas (TV series) per North America. This information would be happiest if kept together. BD2412 T 01:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Northamerica1000 and BD2412. Based on nom's initial reasoning, this should have been a merge. Other TV episode pages are tagged as needing references, but they are not up for deletion. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The size of the article that is proposed to merge into is irrelevant. Just because an article is small doesn't mean we should start merging other things into it. bop34 • talk • contribs 13:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Las Hermanas (TV series) and get rid of the unreliable sources.-- Mike 🗩 15:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: per nom. —Ctrlwiki • talk • 11:16, 10 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. The "keep" arguments consist only of references to WP:NFOOTY, which presumes notability for high-level players. But this presumption is rebuttable, and it has been rebutted here: the "delete" side argues that the subject fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources, and that argument has not been refuted (or mostly even addressed) by the "keep" side. Based on the strength of the arguments presented, in the light of applicable guidelines, we therefore have rough consensus for deletion. Sandstein 09:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edvin Dahlqvist[edit]

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

Fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL. Played less than 1 minute of pro-league football back in 2019, and now plays on the third tier. His 16 minutes in the cup for IFK was against an amateur team. Geschichte (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep it does seem to violate the spirit of WP:NFOOTY, but he nonetheless does pass WP:NFOOTY. Realistically, there probably should be a change to the standard as playing in the 90th minute and stoppage time in one top level match is not really enough for notability, but per the current guidelines I feel I have to go with keep. I very much understand the nomination rationale though. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 00:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Move to draft While he meets WP:NFOOTY by the narrowest of technicalities having been subbed in the 89th minute of an Allsvenskan match against AIK, there is long-standing consensus at WP:FOOTY that a footballer must continue to play at that level and meet WP:GNG. As is stated at WP:NSPORT, meeting the sport-specific criteria doesn't mean that an article must be kept. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Updating my !vote to show preference to move this to draft. As stated by GiantSnowman, he is still young with his career still ahead of him. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as he is a young player with ongoing career, and we should allow for that. Giant Snowman 10:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find any WP:SIGCOV for this subject that currently exists. Would not be opposed to move to draft as this could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. There look to be a lot of soccer-related bios/profiles on random sites (as with most other players), but there seemed to be a void in my search of anything I could point to that would qualify the subject for a stand-alone article in my opinion. GauchoDude (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY. Moving to a draft wouldn't improve Wikipedia as it makes the article harder for readers to find, and less likely to be improved and open to deletion in six months. NemesisAT (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 16:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - although I contested the initial PROD, I'm still not convinced that he's notable and the general consensus is that failing GNG is more important than one minute of NFOOTBALL. Best sources I can find on him are UF and GP but these are fairly weak in my view Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:NFOOTY. Sources looks OK as well.BabbaQ (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Were you able to locate any that showed WP:SIGCOV of Dahlqvist? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY further subject is 22 years with an ongoing career.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus, current keep votes are focusing on NFOOTY whilst the delete votes are focusing on the more important GNG. Extending to try to deliver consensus one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are WP:SNGs inherenlty less important than WP:GNG? At WP:SNG it's stated Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article. So my question is, is meeting WP:SNG but not necessarily is WP:GNG a problem or is it that, as stated articles which pass an SNG [...] may still be deleted? (Note: I did !vote keep above, but per the re-lister's comment and some other !votes, I wanted to see what others' thoughts were on this question because it seems to be rather central to the discussion) snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 21:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snood1205 the FAQ at the top of WP:NFOOTBALL gives guidance on this. The answer to Q2 is No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per common AfD discussions and consensus from the soccer community, this is found at WP:WINNEROUTCOMES. GauchoDude (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The thing is, we probably have more than 150 AFDs where footballers with 1 pro game got their article deleted. I wouldn't have nominated it if this hadn't become the general consensus. That's why I wrote "fails the spirit of NFOOTBALL". In my opinion the article fails the SNG, as I don't think the SNG was meant to retain 1-minute players. At least that's not how the SNG works now, following the probably 150 (maybe more) AFDs. Geschichte (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, this consensus can be found at WP:WINNEROUTCOMES, last bullet point. GauchoDude (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable according to WP:NFOOTBALL. Furthermore, he is a young player with a long career ahead of him. Today, he transferred to Landskrona BoIS in Superettan (tier 2) and if he continues to develop, it is likely that he will soon play in Allsvenskan (tier 1, fully professional league) again. // Mattias321 (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this, I've added this plus a reference to the article. I don't know anything about football so if someone could check what I've added is correct that would be fab. This further shows why the article should be kept, the player is still active and new coverage is becoming available. NemesisAT (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTY does not confer notability, it presumes a topic will meet GNG. If it does not meet GNG then meeting NFOOTY is irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is still young and already has a top-tier appearance. The sources look ok so this is definitely a WP:NFOOTY pass. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources do not demonstrate significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. We shouldn't keep this based on 1 minute of professional football when there's no evidence he'll play in an FPL ever again (he doesn't currently after all). If he joins and plays for a fully-professional club in the future, then can be re-created, but it's WP:TOOSOON right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Is young, might be notable in the future" is pure WP:CRYSTAL, and while it is sometimes maybe justifiable in cases where the subject has recently signed to a pro team but the season hasn't started yet so they don't have coverage, in this case the dude was a very late sub in one pro match and has since been playing in lower tiers with no indication of returning to pro. !votes based purely on his technically meeting NFOOTY are also not in line with the guidelines, which very explicitly defer to/require GNG. If coverage doesn't currently exist for a subject, then they shouldn't have an article on WP. JoelleJay (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Is young, might be notable in the future" is one of the few valid uses of draft space. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftspace is not an indefinite holding area, and drafts are deleted if not edited in 6 months. No evidence he'll meet WP:GNG in the next few months, and he isn't playing in an FPL, so won't meet WP:NFOOTY in that time. If he was playing in an FPL, I would suggest draftspace, but think it'll just get left in draftspace indefinitely (or deleted in 6 months as abandoned draft). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 4 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Mohiuddin[edit]

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

Mohiuddin was involved in running a charity named Infolady, which is the subject of most of the sourced provided. None of them contain any sustained coverage of her person. Much is also non independent. Since I haven't been able to locate any significant coverage in third-party sources myself, I don't see her meeting WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage in renowned independent news organizations such as Aljazeera, France24 and Philanthropy Age. These coverages explicitly include and refer to Mohiuddin. Besides these, the Infolady Model has achieved numerous local and international awards. Some of them are the Bob's award (Infolady wins Bobs award | The Daily Star), Manthanaward (E-AGRICULTURE & LIVELIHOOD, Winner 2011 – Manthan Award). Targeting the Ultra Poor Program is also an award winning program of BRAC (largest NGO in the world). Kindly help improve the article, but deletion, I believe, is not a constructive solution. The article just contains objective information, not trying to promote any person or organization, citing proper authentic references. J1477 (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we're on the same page yet: I believe that there is no significant (that is, focussed and in-depth) coverage of her biography available. You say that the coverage of Infolady 'includes and refers' to Mohiuddin. This is true, but we are looking for more than mentions. If you're not sure what I mean by significant coverage, have a look at WP:SIGCOV. It seems you're trying to make the case for Infolady's notability — that is not what I'm quibbling about. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infolady is a notable award winning model, there is no doubt about that. It doesn't require further promotion. I have added further information as to her accomplishments as Head of the program (they came out in news portals, her name was not mentioned) but it is apparent that she was the head of the program during that time (if we match the dates). She also contributed to BRAC's TUP Program, another award winning program, and BRAC is the largest NGO in the world. She also hosted BRAC's first every Hackathon. As a person who has so much philanthropic contribution in Bangladesh, she deserves to have a few lines on Wikipedia (and only lines that were mentioned in renowned news portals). Proof and credibility of her activities exist - but citing LinkedIn and other personal blogs would not be acceptable by Wikipedia. Hence only providing information (a few lines) that were cited in these news portals. Bottom line: She was head of the award winning infolady program, award winning TUP program, and during her tenure she made some noteworthy implementations. Kindly end the debate here. J1477 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I believe you do not yet understand how notability on Wikipedia works. Subjects generally need to have been covered in detail by two or more reliable and independent sources (WP:GNG). Even though you've written at length in favour of Mohiuddin's notably, you have failed to demonstrate that detailed, professional coverage of her exists. Coverage is what determines her notability, not whether she was involved with BRAC or any other charity. You saying that she 'deserves' to have a Wikipedia article does not change this. Of course, I'll be happy to review significant coverage of her once it's added to this discussion. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J1477, AFD discussions last at least 7 days unless the nominator chooses to withdraw their nomination. This debate will last a few more days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom does not meet notability guidelines.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Other than some passing/trivial mentions, there is no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources provided by J1477 are coverage of the Infolady program, not Laura Mohiuddin. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and there isn't enough significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:41, 6 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. Daniel (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mrbrown (2nd nomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

After attempting to clean up this article, I realized I just could not find solid evidence of notability. The closure of 2006 AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrbrown was fine (the article needed cleaning up at the time, not deleting), but the "keep" reasoning of the participants demonstrated several flaws.

First, participants seemed to conflate notoriety (or fame) with notability. Fame doesn't equal notability.
Second, the significant coverage that can be found (sources listed in the prior AFD) are basically about WP:1EVENT, an incident that occurred in July-August 2006 in which the subject got his newspaper column suspended for mocking the Singaporean government.
It's also questionable that nearly all of the coverage comes from The Straits Times, about the subject's position as an ex-columnist in Today, a rival newspaper owned by the same holding company. It's hard to know what to make of that; it almost seems like a holding company using its newspaper properties to stir things up between them. This treads into primary-source territory.
Finally, see WP:RSP: The Straits Times is not considered a reliable source when the Signaporean government is involved in the coverage. The sources mentioned in the prior AFD aren't in this article, and they shouldn't be.

The coverage that remains is already in the article, and does not seem sufficient for the subject to merit an article on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While The Straits Times should be used with caution for contentious facts, I see no reason why its in-depth coverage of an anti-government protestor would somehow not count toward that person's notability. It's also not the case that he's a sort of WP:1E kind of guy; he's still considered to be a prominent Singaporean blogger by RS (compare Singapore's most famous blogger from 2008). I'm seeing coverage of his political activity from sources like AsiaOne and Singapore's The Independent (1 2), and his writings have been covered by Yahoo News Singapore. I'm also seeing reviews of his "The mrbrown show". One is from The Straits Times and, while not positive in tone, it still contributes towards him being well-known. He seems to pass WP:BASIC when the sources listed above are taken together with the sources in the article (as well as those presented in the previous AfD, which were numerous). — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Prominent Singapore blogger such that his facebook post got mentioned by local authority, Land Transport Authority, in an Asiaone article, his comment is reported and noted as prominent blogger in The Straits Times article over a minor Covid-19 dispute and his twitter post got reported in Asiaone. Passes GNG. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search reveals the notability of the subject also the 1st nomination result was 'Keep'. MickyShy (talk) 06:20, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Dwyer[edit]

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

Fails a WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:37, 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 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. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ahmed Warsame (Baradho)[edit]

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

Fails before search. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:33, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Institute[edit]

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

Non-notable sub-entity of the Munk School of Global Affairs. Could not find any independent reliable sources mentioning it, fails WP:NORG. See WP:SCHOOL OUTCOMES as well. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 19:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 19:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 19:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 19:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 19:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Munk School of Global Affairs.Akevsharma (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As this clearly notable. I was thinking about redirecting it, but the term is way to vague and I don't think Munk School of Global Affairs is what people should be sent to when looking for Asian institutes. It's not like someone can't just copy over the content worth saving to the other article either. Which going by the fact that most (or all) of the references are primary probably isn't much. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a lack of reliable sources independent of the subject (UToronto). Notability is not inherited and there needs to be justification that this specific entity of UToronto meets WP:GNG, because UToronto and Munk School of Global Affairs already have their own standalone page. Multi7001 (talk) 02:42, 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. The article being retained on dewp back in 2005 has absolutely no bearing on this discussion whatsoever. Daniel (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Free (gratis) beer[edit]

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

The article reads like a WP:SYNTHesis personal essay or survey discussion about the various contexts in which beer has sometimes been given away for free or sometimes has the word free in its brand name or colloquial name. This does not seem to be about a clearly identifiable and notable encyclopedic subject that reliable sources have extensively discussed. The cited sources generally do not extensively discourse on the subject of "free beer", but instead mention some instance of giving beer away for free within a discussion of some other topic. See also the recent discussion at Talk:Free (gratis) beer#Requested move 23 November 2021. Food has also been given away for free, but we don't have an article about free food. We also don't have an article about expensive beer or low-cost beer or moderately priced food or free whiskey or free vodka or free water or free books or free housing or free entertainment or free clothing or free Wi-Fi or cat killers in film. Why do we need an article about free beer? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's reasoning. This does just seem like a collection of noteworthy times that beer was given away/advertised for free, along with a section for the Free Beer brand. It isn't a concept like free food as product samples or free education, it's just a specific product which people have given away at no cost sometimes. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, if kept, the article title should be changed (I do see there is a discussion underway) because I initially thought from the title of the article it was going to refer to the phrase "Free as in free speech, not free as in free beer". It is mentioned, but only in a small section. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 20:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For that, see Free as in free beer (a.k.a. Gratis versus libre). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Snood1205. Also had the same confusion. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I'd expect the administrator and veteran editor who created this page to know better. -Apocheir (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Under which criterion, I'm curious? Mistakes happen, and our notability guidelines aren't exactly objective. It's perfectly reasonable for any editor regardless of experience to have a different opinion about what is notable, which is what these discussions are for. ASUKITE 17:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I do agree with delete, and questioned the notability at the start of the RM on that page, I do have to disagree with the notion that they should "know better", particularly as it has been translated from an article on the German Wikipedia, which from what I understand has generally high standards, though perhaps not to quite the same level as here. BilledMammal (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is not an original creation but a translation of the German article de:Freibier which has managed to survive at the German Wikipedia for over twelve years without problems. JIP | Talk 23:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JIP: The non-English, simple English, and other Wikipedias tend to have lower quality standards/policy strictness and enforcement compared to the English Wikipedia. A lot of the articles tend to be poorly-referenced but don't get tagged, deleted, or fixed for a long time or simply forever, and content just doesn't get filtered out due to the lack of activity compared to that of the En Wiki's or the determination of what is and isn't acceptable content. Judging by the Free beer article on the German Wikipedia, that just must be an acceptable topic there but not here. It's usually easier to transwiki content from the En Wiki to another than vice versa. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Akevsharma (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator. MickyShy (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless a suitable merger location is suggested - While I do find the notability of this subject somewhat dubious, and think it probably should be merged to another article, as it stands I can't see what is unencyclopedic about its actual contents. From what I'm aware German Wikipedia typically has quite high standards for article notability, so I'm not convinced of the argument that "German Wikipedia just accepts things that English Wikipedia does not". HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The notability standards on the German Wikipedia are simply different from ours, rather than higher or lower. They accept things that we do not and we accepts things that they do not. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was nominated for deletion on the German wikipedia in 2005 and the result was keep. I would say that the discussion itself does not really discuss the notability of the article in a similar way to AfDs now at the English Wiki, but it's worthwhile noting that there was an AfD for the German article with the result of keep. It can be viewed here: Freibeir German AfD. (Noting this: I still retain my vote as delete, I just thought it would be useful to bring to the conversation). snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 14:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the German article was nominated for deletion in February 2005. The article at the time was fairly minimal, and the reason for deletion was that it was a trivial article. The article was since greatly expanded and has not been nominated for deletion again. JIP | Talk 16:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - but there is some good content. I would suggest merging history into Beer, and possibly even creating articles for the festivals and beers mentioned if they are sufficiently notable. 137.220.68.182 (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synth, not notable concept. Free1Soul (talk) 16:47, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Živko Korać[edit]

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

Biography of a local Krajina militant who does not appear to be notable. I find coverage in blogs and other unreliable sources. There is some coverage in highly partisan local news sources, but not the kind of thing we normally base a bio article on. Mccapra (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually weird, a google search for "Živko Korać" site:hr produces practically nothing. Usually one can find at least some coverage... Are we sure this is not a hoax? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found quite a few dubious looking sources. Mccapra (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I found a single mainstream article mention after all - [12] in Večernji list mentions him in a single sentence Bivši pripadnik krajinske paravojske Živko Korać također je iza sebe ostavio nekoliko žrtava, presudivši sam sebi bombom kad je na Zrinskoj gori bio okružen sisačkim specijalcima., translated "Former member of Krajina paramilitary Živko Korać also left behind several victims, taking his own life with a bomb when Sisak special police surrounded him on Zrinska gora." I suppose that's a modicum of a claim of notoriety, but still I don't see WP:SIGCOV. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet BASIC, also NOTMEMORIAL. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:14, 29 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. Daniel (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Numbers[edit]

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

Couldn't find any notability to meet WP:NFILM. Htanaungg (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding some coverage for this film that points towards it being notable. I added one to the page - I can't access the full book but what I could see points towards it being enough to establish some notability. It also looks like it's been reviewed in the Austin-American Statesman and the Observer. I can't access the full articles since I have to wait for my subscription to be renewed, but if someone could check these that would be awesome of them. This also looks potentially usable, but I have a feeling it may be a passing mention. I know that so far this isn't a lot, but the way it's talked about gives off the strong impression that there is more out there that isn't available on the internet due to the time period. Even major papers are still struggling to get their archives online, tbh. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sight & Sound look to have done a review. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned in this book from Serpent's Tail, although that's somewhat of a shaky source. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Review from the LA Times. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm not posting this to be snarky - this is taking a lot of digging to uncover, to be honest. The early or pre-internet stuff tends to be a bit challenging, especially if it's not something that's super mainstream. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to sources from ReaderofthePack, there are multiple reviews that look to occupy a significant part of a page from different UK newspapers at the time, including The Stage, Evening Herald, Irish Independent per The British Newspaper Archive. I think everything combined here is probably enough for general notability. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reviews in reliable sources such as The Observer, The Herald and The Irish Independent that show a clear pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 04:42, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strait Jackets[edit]

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

Short-lived band, possibly influential in its local scene but probably not beyond it. Fails WP:MUSICBIO; no significant coverage to be found. Unsourced. Lennart97 (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to fail WP:NBAND. They did not even release an album. Geschichte (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it’s hard to find sources about obscure topics from all the way back in the 70s, which is why I’m not bothering, but a no-album band only notable for being “regarded as the first original punk band in Tampa” seems like a clear case of WP:GARAGE. Dronebogus (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:15, 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 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 13:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Space Development Network[edit]

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

Non-notable network "In April 2015 Louis met Sanjay and Sujay through social media. They formed a Facebook group called SDN (Space Development Network)." The user who created this article is "Sujay", clearly self-promotion, and no reliable source cited. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 13:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are their own website (with a broken link going to a list of area codes) and a local news fluff piece. I was unable to find any other notrivial mentions, though the name is generic enough that isn't definitive. Searching for the topic gives http://developspace.info/ (perhaps the intended target of the broken link) and a couple mentions of someone named Doug Plata as the founder of this or an identically named project, who is not on the page at all but appears to be at least somewhat legitimate. Given the lack of any other coverage, I kind of doubt the existence of this "global network" as anything other than a vanity project. Rusalkii (talk) 06:34, 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 13:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deependra Singh (Bollywood actor)[edit]

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

The two sources in the article do not discuss the subject in depth. To be notable under WP:NACTOR, he would need to have had significant roles in two notable films. He appears in Prithviraj (film), but I'm not sure whether his role can be described as significant. Either way, his only other role (on Baahubali: The Beginning) was only minor. Without any significant coverage (I haven't found any), the article should be deleted under WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom; doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. In both the references [13] [14] he has only trivial mention and one of the source is WP:REPUBLICTV. Although he appeared in two notable movies, I don't think he played any significant roles. Eevee01^(talk) 09:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NACTOR Ravensfire (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deependra Singh and Deependra Singh which was protected after being recreated. Requesting the closing admin review and protect this new target if needed. Ravensfire (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO due to lack of successful movies as lead artist and no major award. Venkat TL (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO.Juggyevil (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG upcoming at best not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:17, 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 no consensus due to low participation. Daniel (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Doner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable person with no references. Article has been redirected to a list of polyglots but he wasn’t on the list so I don’t understand the redirect. BostonMensa (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep: The page is no longer a redirect. It's a now a stub. In addition to the New York Times article, I found articles in The New York Daily News[15], and Haaretz/Reuters.[16]. Seems to pass notability standards. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral there may be enough coverage to meet notability, but a lot of it is just interviews which are not counted. Overall there does not seem to be much scrutiny about Doner's claims of exceptional linguistic ability. Most of the coverage is just boosterism repeating Doner's claims about himself. We would not accept such coverage for notability in other topic areas. (t · c) buidhe 08:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Princess of Dubai[edit]

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

No sources, not notable, and speculative information about living people/family. Gorebath (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Several people on the list are independently notable, and their articles include adequate references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article implies that there is a an official titled position called "princess of Dubai", which there isn't. The proper title is Sheikha and is used the attirbute to any female from member of the ruling family. This is not a similar position like the Duchy of Cornwall. A list of someone's children can be added to that person's page. Gorebath (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's Mohammed_bin_Rashid_Al_Maktoum#Wives_and_children, unclear why there should be a separate page for his daughters. "People in the list are notable" is not a reason to keep an article when any arbitrary list may link to existing articles. Reywas92^Talk 18:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps just a list for all Royalty that has their own articles. Category:Emirati royalty Dream Focus 20:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. LondonIP (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete A poorer quality copy of part of the information on the sheikh's children, and as already has been pointed out, it's not a real position, but just a translation of a courtesy title. Mangoe (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insignificant. Wareon (talk) 17:21, 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 delete. ✗plicit 04:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Killer Within[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems good, this and this seem more bloggy. Geschichte (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NFO, "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." I don't think Joshua Tyler qualifies as a nationally known critic. Platonk (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although the first source above is good, we will need more than that. SL93 (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found this in a Newspapers.com search. Can someone with an active subscription check it to see if it's usable? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's about Howell, who visited a movie theatre; the film is mentioned. Geschichte (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass GNG or WP:NFILM. No citations for over 10 years on Wikipedia, IMDb reviews are awful, and the-numbers.com doesn't even have the film on file. Not surprised there are no reviews and hence no notability. Delete. Platonk (talk) 23:35, 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 no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 11:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai von Bismarck[edit]

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

Almost all coverage here relates to his relationship with Kate Moss. (This was stripped from the article by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, on questionable grounds) This sort of "Who is x famous celebrity's new boyfriend/girlfriend" tabloid coverage is routine and doesn't make them notable. Being minor nobility doesn't make on notable either. The Telegraph piece is independent but is an interview, which only questionably counts towards notability. I think a redirect to Kate Moss is probably appropriate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment these may prove helpful to help establish notability as a photographer: [17] and [18]. And while this one is about his relationship, it isn't tabloid coverage: [19] -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per sources above. Whilst these are interviews, they are not verbatim interview transcripts but instead quotes interspersed with journalistic prose and just about get across the line for significant coverage based on the journalists who are writing and providing independent, reliable coverage. FOARP (talk) 14:26, 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 11:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Himayat Ali Mirza[edit]

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

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:BIO scope_creep^Talk 11:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject claims to be the great grandson of an Indian King. "there are some 1,900 heirs who claim relationship with the Nizam" (Source:Indian Express, 2008) The legal tussle for royal money seems to be ongoing and Wikipedia should not take sides in promoting one among the others. Let the family and trust decide it. The subject must have his own notability. Claiming a stake in wealth and getting named in news article for those claims is not enough for getting an article. Fails, WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Created by suspected WP:COIN user. Venkat TL (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:18, 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 Alexander Gradsky#Discography. Daniel (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium (rock opera)[edit]

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

Sources are empty, there is no confirmation of significance.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alexander Gradsky#Discography. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows only this paper and mentions of the song in recent news about his death. SBKSPP (talk) 00:13, 4 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 11:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sreyash Sarkar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think that the subject satisfies WP:AUTHOR and/or WP:NACADEMIC criteria. Most of the sources appear to be self-publications or poetry publications on online literary magazines (with questionable notability by Wikipedia standards). The article itself reads like WP:PROMOTION as well; as a result, I believe the notability should be re-adressed and re-evaluated. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This second nomination seems irrelevant as this was already discussed at length at a previous debate. The subject does qualify notability criteria as per this citation which is WP:RS and contains a screenful of the text specifically about him. Also taking into account review magazines like Galway Review + Red River Review etc. But there should be a good cleanup and the article needs proper structure.Rbhu23 (talk)

Keep, because of this article and this one. But, suggesting to improve references. Tyuier34 (talk)

Comment: I don't really think a single source (which looks questionable) on its own satisfies the basic notability criteria. The problem with the rest of the review sources (or with the rest of the sources, see WP:NOTEBOMB) is that they appear to be poetry blogs that likely do not satisfy WP:RS (or may lack general editorial oversight). That's what motivated me up to re-open the discussion, because this point was not really addressed in the previous discussion (which featured input from multiple single-purpose accounts). The article is also unfortunately marred with incorrect attributions: there is no mention of Le Mauricien on news.africa article, Indiana Voice Journal was wrongly cited as Indiana Review. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree. It should be Indiana Voice Journal. I did a deep dive(frankly, it could too much of my time). So, the article on Le Mauricien does have the same title as that of [20]. It was the same news reprinted as provided by the webarchive version. I see River River Magazine, El Portal Magazine and Plainsongs Magazine publishing his work, which means literature departments of various universities have interest in his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyuier34 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep, because not only is he [21] in the NCHC (National Collegiate Honors Council) magazine of the University of Nebraska Lincoln, he is part of their undergraduate creative writing syllabus. But the article is in shams. Why would one separate Works and Publications? Has no meaning. Loppyted97 (talk)

Delete. No sign of WP:NPROF. Looks also WP:TOOSOON for WP:NAUTHOR. Getting poems published by the Galway Review is a start, but doesn't demonstrate the kind of impact we're looking for. The student profile doesn't add much to notability; I'm otherwise seeing a lot of WP:REFBOMBING with sources of uncertain at best reliability. The article is in poor enough shape that WP:TNT applies. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not at all notable as NPROF; not yet notable as an author. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF ,WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:22, 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 move to draftspace, create redirect to 2022 IndyCar Series, and salt. Daniel (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Indianapolis 500[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

See previous AfD in September which closed as making the article a redirect, only for the article to be recreated less than a fortnight later. Clearly still WP:TOOSOON, as very little of the article's current contents relate directly or specifically to the 2022 event rather than to the 2022 IndyCar Series (or apparently the 2021 IndyCar Series given the stuff about a test in October this year). Barring unforeseen disruption the race always takes place on the last Sunday of May at the same venue over the same distance, so none of the information about the event itself (rather than tests which happen to take place at the same venue) in the article is specific to this event. I considered requesting speedy deletion under WP:G4, but since the contents have changed compared with before that previous debate I decided that it is probably best to start a new discussion. Realistically I don't think this article needs to be created until April or early-May next year. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect until the 2022 season starts, completely agree with the nominator's rationale. There's nothing here about the 2022 event, just what happens every year. None of the sources in the article are anything more than routine and don't focus on the event specifically, meaning there is no significant coverage of the 2022 Indy 500 as yet. Googling for more shows up only primary sources, ticketing pages, and a handful of entry speculations which are coverage more of the drivers than they are of the event (and are routine either way). To quote myself from the first AfD:

The first criterion of CRYSTAL states quite clearly that the event must be notable and almost certain to take place. While the second condition is debatable (commenters above are speculating quite optimistically), the 2022 Indy 500 unambiguously fails WP:GNG.

The situation hasn't changed. Redirect again. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to expand on my above !vote, and in anticipation of possible keep arguments, looking back at the previous AfD many keep !voters seemed happy to overlook the notability standards simply because the event was scheduled to take place. That is not a valid reason for inclusion per WP:CRYSTAL. To be kept, the event not only has to be almost certain to take place, but it must also have enough coverage to qualify for an article. If that coverage doesn't exist, then the subject doesn't get an article, because notability is not inherited. The 2022 Indy 500 must prove its notability on its own merits, it doesn't get an article 6 months in advance without any coverage just because it's an Indy 500. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salt with a speedy close per previous AfD, as nothing has changed (if the previous discussion yeilded a delete consensus, CSD G4 would apply). I realise that this has content about a rookie test, but that (according to source 1) isn't Indy 500 specific, but rather a condition of competing in Indy car's oval races, and, therefore does not contribute to the event's notability. Therefore, the (lack) of coverage is the same and I see no reason for this to go another way to the previous AfD. I would also recommend WP:SALTing to prevent another creation. SSSB (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I notice that the 2021 article was likewise created too early, but instead of being deleted, it was moved to draft space until sometime in January of that year, when more material for the article was available. Indyguy (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to 2022 IndyCar Series; protect redirect; send content to Draftspace until first race of season at the earliest. WP:TOOSOON for this race to meet GNG. -^"Ghost ^of ^{Dan Gurney"} 17:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/redirect: I am not as convinced that this article violates the spirit of the rule WP:CRYSTAL. As noted in (1.) there, "Preparation for the event" has already taken place. 2022 Indy 500 Rookie Orientation Program took place on October 8, 2021. That was not general IndyCar oval testing, or an extension of the 2021 season. According to this ARTICLE, is was specifically "...for the Indianapolis 500". Reliable sources including NBC Sports, Indianapolis Star , RACER mention the event in non-speculative fashion. The Official Site has it officially announced, a schedule for the month published, a unique annual logo created and released, and tickets on-sale. It is likely that news surrounding the 2022 race will probably be light until after the first of the year, but to take the firm stance that it is mere 'speculation' that the 2022 Indy 500 will occur is a bit of an extreme position.

For similar comparison, there exists articles for Super Bowl LVII, Super Bowl LVIII, and Super Bowl LIX. Those articles represent events that do not exist beyond having been announced and scheduled. It is appropriate to discuss WP:TOO SOON. If someone had started 2022 Indianapolis 500 the Monday morning after the 2021 race, I think all would agree that is "too soon". The 2021 IndyCar Series season is over, and in fact all major U.S. racing series have concluded their respective 2021 seasons. Since roughly 2007, it has been customary at Wikipedia to begin assembling the articles 20XX IndyCar Series and 20XX Indianapolis 500 at some point after the conclusion of the previous year's season; as the offseason is when news begins to go out about the upcoming season. There appears to be a similar rule of thumb used in other similar projects. For example, 2022 Major League Baseball season was created on a date near the end of the 2021 season. A sub-page of that same article (2022 Major League Baseball draft) is also up, and that doesn't even have a date or location assigned to it yet.

I oppose the speedy deletion. At the very most, 2022 Indianapolis 500 should be a redirect to 2022 IndyCar Series until the 2022 season begins, and be moved to draft space. Doctorindy↔Talk 17:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me that sounds like IndyCar editors need to reassess their publication schedule more than it sounds like we need to reconsider deletion. The season is notable, but given how light coverage is, I don't see why or how an article for the Indy 500 is being created before the season has yet started. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per consensus at first AFD. Semi-protect to prevent recreation.4meter4 (talk) 23:25, 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 11:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Britto[edit]

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

Fails WP:MMABIO as he does not have 3 fights in a top tier promotion, nor has he been ranked inside the top 10 of his division. One win over a young rafael dos anjos isn't notable enough for a page. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 09:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He's clearly not notable as an MMA fighter and the article fails to show that WP:GNG is met. The notability issue boils down to whether or not you believe his BJJ accomplishments are enough to show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't but let's see what other people think. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 13:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Britto doesn't appear to have a entry on him on his native language / Portuguese wikipedia either. Best I got was George Britton Halford and Jorge de Brito. Speaking from experience, even somewhat notable people have entries on them on their native languages. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a lot to like in his resume', but I can't find enough to vote to keep this article. The biggest factor is that my search didn't find the significant independent coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. His medals at the IBJJF world events were all in master (i.e., older) divisions, which does not constitute the highest level per WP:NSPORT or WP:MANOTE. He won a European ADCC title but lost in the first round at the world championships to a fighter who lost his next match. There is an unsourced claim of 5 Rio state championships in BJJ, but even if true it's not sufficient to meet any WP notability criteria. He had no top tier MMA fights. I think his record is more impressive than many athletes who have articles, but I can't find any WP notability criteria that he meets. Papaursa (talk) 15:46, 4 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 11:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R v Loubser[edit]

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

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Lead section admits that it has "a very brief report", so the article is essentially admitting that it lacks notability. Mako001 (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 08:42, 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. Tone 10:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lionello Cowan[edit]

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

Notability and no any reference. Google search gives me more inspire to nominate this article as it has no independent secondary reliable source to back it.

Zaleskusd1059 (talk) 7:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself doesn't have any reference, and no any Ghanian independent newspaper have feature him with significant coverage. Zafas1653 (talk) 2:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of British Rail departmental multiple unit classes. Daniel (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 960[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 960

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

Article is WP:OR. Has one Further reading entry published in 1988, but as much of the text is about events after then, article is effectively uncited. Prepopots (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any sources online besides Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and tag with ((r with possibilities))) to List of British Rail departmental multiple unit classes per comments showing the probable existence of offline sources on this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 930 and as a valid WP:ATD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of British Rail departmental multiple unit classes as RandomCanadian. I have several Ian Allen/Platform 5 spotting guides from the 1970s through the 1990s and I cannot substantiate the "Class 960" nomenclature. Mackensen (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect yes redirect to the suggested target for now.VirenRaval89 (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others ... not spending a lot of time as nom. has done several at once. Stuff generally available at railcar.co.uk via coach numbers (likely sps but likely accurate) and would be in the UK rail magazines to which I dont subscribe.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:29, 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 List of British Rail departmental multiple unit classes. Daniel (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 951[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 951

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

Entire article is WP:OR. Has been hatnoted as uncited for 12 years. Prepopots (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any information on this supposed class, other than mirrors of the article on Wikipedia. No sense in merging either, because there's nothing with references to even be merged. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and tag with ((r with possibilities))) to List of British Rail departmental multiple unit classes per comments showing the probable existence of offline sources on this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 930 and as a valid WP:ATD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of British Rail departmental multiple unit classes as RandomCanadian. I have several Ian Allen/Platform 5 spotting guides from the 1970s through the 1990s and I cannot substantiate the "Class 951" nomenclature. Mackensen (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect yes redirect to the suggested target above rather than deletion.VirenRaval89 (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others ... not spending a lot of time as nom. has done several at once. Stuff generally available at railcar.co.uk via coach numbers (likely sps but likely accurate) and would be in the UK rail magazines to which I dont subscribe.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:21, 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 delete. Tone 10:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay (field hockey)[edit]

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

This individual does not appear to be notable under WP:NSPORT, nor can I find sources that indicate that this person meets WP:BASIC. As a result, I believe that that the article should be deleted, as the article subject is non-notable. As it currently stands, this is a wholly unreferenced apparent BLP. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Junior World cups do not count from what I know. And there is also the problem of zero sources cited. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Junior WC is just a junior one and unsourced. Kante4 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:30, 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 List of British Rail departmental multiple unit classes. Daniel (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 937[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 937

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

Entire article is WP:OR. Has been hatnoted as uncited for 12 years. Prepopots (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, and I cannot find anything online apart from mirrors. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and tag with ((r with possibilities))) to List of British Rail departmental multiple unit classes per comments showing the probable existence of offline sources on this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 930 and as a valid WP:ATD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of British Rail departmental multiple unit classes as RandomCanadian. My Platform 5 spotting guide from 1996 does confirm the five units of this "class" and under the "Class 937" designation, but doesn't say anything further about them. Mackensen (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect yes redirect to the suggested target above rather than deletion.VirenRaval89 (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others ... not spending a lot of time as nom. has done several at once. Stuff generally available at railcar.co.uk via coach numbers (likely sps but likely accurate) and would be in the UK rail magazines to which I dont subscribe.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:20, 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 List of British Rail departmental multiple unit classes. Daniel (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 933[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 933

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

Entire article is WP:OR. Has been hatnoted as uncited for 12 years. Prepopots (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I can find online are Wikipedia mirrors and sites that cite Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and tag with ((r with possibilities))) to List of British Rail departmental multiple unit classes per comments showing the probable existence of offline sources on this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 930 and as a valid WP:ATD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of British Rail departmental multiple unit classes as RandomCanadian. I have several Ian Allen/Platform 5 spotting guides from the 1970s through the 1990s and I cannot substantiate the "Class 933" nomenclature. Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect yes redirect to the suggested target above rather than deletion.VirenRaval89 (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others ... not spending a lot of time as nom. has done several at once. Stuff generally available at railcar.co.uk via coach numbers (likely sps but likely accurate) and would be in the UK rail magazines to which I dont subscribe.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:18, 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 List of British Rail departmental multiple unit classes. Daniel (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 932[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 932

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

Entire article is WP:OR. Has been hatnoted as uncited for 12 years. Prepopots (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing online about this class besides Wikipedia mirrors. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and tag with ((r with possibilities))) to List of British Rail departmental multiple unit classes per comments showing the probable existence of offline sources on this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 930 and as a valid WP:ATD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of British Rail departmental multiple unit classes as RandomCanadian. My Platform 5 spotting guide from 1996 does confirm two units of this "class" and under the "Class 932" designation, but doesn't say anything further about them. My 1988 edition just calls these "SR Tractor Units" with no class designation. Mackensen (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others ... not spending a lot of time as nom. has done several at once. Stuff generally available at railcar.co.uk via coach numbers (likely sps but likely accurate) and would be in the UK rail magazines to which I dont subscribe.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:17, 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 List of British Rail departmental multiple unit classes. Daniel (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 931[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 931

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

Entire article is WP:OR. Has been hatnoted as uncited for 12 years. Prepopots (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like the other articles by the same editor, no sources appear to exist online apart from Wikipedia mirrors. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to a redirect either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and tag with ((r with possibilities))) to List of British Rail departmental multiple unit classes per comments showing the probable existence of sources on this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 930 and as a valid WP:ATD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of British Rail departmental multiple unit classes as RandomCanadian. My Platform 5 spotting guides from 1996 and 1988 do confirm various units belonging to this "class" and under the "Class 931" designation, but doesn't say anything further about them. Mackensen (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect yes redirect to the suggested target rather than deletion.VirenRaval89 (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others ... not spending a lot of time as nom. has done several at once. Stuff generally available at railcar.co.uk via coach numbers (likely sps but likely accurate) and would be in the UK rail magazines to which I dont subscribe.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:17, 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 List of British Rail departmental multiple unit classes. Daniel (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 930[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 930

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

Entire article is WP:OR. Has been hatnoted as uncited for 12 years. Prepopots (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources on this class exist online as far as I can tell, beyond Wikipedia mirrors. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
British Rail Class 950 and Departmental_vehicle#Further_reading list sources which could possibly cover this (this applies to all other similar nominations too). It's likely some other form of offline source exists (possibly in other issues of The Railway Magazine, too). I don't think there's much doubt that these indeed exist (there are pictures one can easily find), its just that there's not nearly enough coverage at this moment to write encyclopedia articles on them. This could possibly be a starting point for the older classes. It might be more logical to redirect to parent class as possible search terms (so, in this case, most probably British Rail Class 405). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to a redirect instead, assuming a valid target is found. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These could also be valid sources, if one has access to them. Those already listed in British_Rail_Classes_445_and_446#Sources might be of particular interest. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Rail Enthusiast cite in Departmental vehicle#Further reading is of no use; it is about ballast wagons with no reference to the subject of these articles. Problem with British Rail Class 405 as a redirect target, is assuming the article is correct, is that the donor units came from over multiple classes, so it's not really the correct parent to redirect to. Same applies to the other articles except for the Class 901 which were all Class 101s. Prepopots (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Prepopots: Still, I would tend to assume with all the sources found, there's likely to be at least some content about this, so finding a suitable WP:ATD would be better, until someone can get access to these sources. The alternative would be redirecting to List of British Rail departmental multiple unit classes; as it's unambiguous that this existed, and well that list is short enough that it should be exhaustive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of British Rail departmental multiple unit classes as RandomCanadian. My Platform 5 spotting guides from 1996 and 1988 do confirm various units belonging to this "class" and under the "Class 930" designation, but doesn't say anything further about them. Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others ... not spending a lot of time as nom. has done several at once. Stuff generally available at railcar.co.uk via coach numbers (likely sps but likely accurate) and would be in the UK rail magazines to which I dont subscribe.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:16, 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 merge to Property law#Transfer of property. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legal successor (property)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A redirect to Property law#Transfer of property, where the concept can be adequately discussed, seems appropriate. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC) (updated: 06:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Property law#Transfer of property, which is missing this concept. BD2412 T 06:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as arricle creator. I simply failed to find the page appropriate to introduce the concept. Loew Galitz (talk) 19:27, 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 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 11:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S v Marx[edit]

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

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar. Google shows no secondary sources. Mako001 (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 06:10, 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 redirect to British Rail Class 101. Daniel (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 901[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 901

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

Entire article is WP:OR. Has been hatnoted as uncited for 12 years. Prepopots (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find anything online about this supposed class, besides mirrors of Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent class (class 101, uncontroversially, here), see also for additional considerations my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 930. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment support the redirect, but you'd likely only find information about it in specialized books or railfan magazines. Oaktree b (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to British Rail Class 101. Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others ... not spending a lot of time as nom. has done several at once. Stuff generally available at railcar.co.uk via coach numbes (likely sps but likely accurate) and would be in the UK rail magazines to which I dont subscribe.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:13, 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 speedy delete (G7). (non-admin closure) --MuZemike 14:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Peterson (football)[edit]

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

Zero independent sources are present in the article. The article subject, a former Division II American football player, does not appear to meet WP:NGRIDIRON as a result of his being honored by the University of New Haven. He also does not appear to meet WP:BASIC based off of sources I could find via internet search, though I see some sources on a baseball player who appears to be a different individual. As a result, this article should be deleted as non-notable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article's creation seems to have been the first edits of Evertsean, who has since blanked their userpage, blanked the article, and requested speedy deletion. Sad. jp×g 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vocabulary portal of the University of Leipzig[edit]

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

There are no sources either in this article or in its German counterpart indicating that this website is independently notable from the University of Leipzig, which runs the website. I am likewise unable to find any that would pass WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. As a result, I propose that this be redirected to University of Leipzig, where the vocabulary portal can be sufficiently covered within the context of the university. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not redirect The only coverage I can find is a passing mention in a news article from 2013. Unless there are substantial independent sources covering this webpage, it would be WP:UNDUE to mention on the main ULeipzig article, and therefore the redirect would be inappropriate as it would not give anyone following it information on the topic they are looking for (t · c) buidhe 08:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there just isn't the independent sources out there that are needed for this to be notable. I don't think a redirect would work either. Since as Buidhe says it would give the subject UNDUE weight in the target article. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:58, 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. Tone 10:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Cadet, Junior and U21 Karate World Championship[edit]

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

Following the test nomination of 2019 Cadet, Junior and U21 Karate World Championship which resulted in DELETE I am now bundling all the previous instances of this competition in the present nomination. Mccapra (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Like the article on the 2019 event, these articles are all just listings of results of junior tournaments. There is no significant coverage by independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 20:55, 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 redirect to List of accounting firms in Bangladesh. This will allow the merge requested by Mehediabedin to occur with appropriate attribution. Daniel (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of accounting firms in Bangladesh[edit]

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

We don’t have lists of accountancy firms in any other country; all listed firms are currently redlinks and few if any of them are likely to be notable. WP:NOTDIR applies. Mccapra (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seriously violates WP:NOTDIR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and ~~likely Wikipedia:PROMOTION~~ Dronebogus (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I request to keep it because there are little information about Bangladeshi accountant firm in internet and encyclopedia. Also it is not promotional article. Mehediabedin (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL Isn’t a good reason to keep something. Like I said, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of mundane information. If you’d like to help expand this subject try adding reliable third-party-sourced info to Accounting in Bangladesh. Dronebogus (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly WP:NOTDIR here. Ajf773 (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its crystal clear WP:NOTDIR a list. Fails our notability criteria. Behind the moors (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a request: Instead of delete the article can you move the page to my draft or subpage? If you all approve I want to add this page as a section passage (I mean copy the words) in Accounting in Bangladesh with more third party source and information. Mehediabedin (talk) 12:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIR --Devokewater ^(talk) 12:57, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kittlers, Arkansas[edit]

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

This one appears to be a NN rail feature. Topos show a point on the railroad with only minimal development. Appears in an 1899 rail directory as a point without a post office, but nothing significant is said about it there, and I found another directory listing from 1922. That's about all I could find for this point - no indication of a pass of WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Talk 04:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that there's a Gay District of Kittlers, though I'm unsure about the reliability of the source that describes it. However, if that source is correct, then this isn't just a train station masquerading as a geostub. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Government weather reports indicate that shingles were blown off a roof in a storm and that tree limbs were broken. Are we sure this is uninhabited?— Mhawk10 (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first source is unreliable and possibly auto-generated. The second one is a passing mention in a government source that defines locations by the closest named point - I've seen stores, named farms, etc appear in those. Neither of those are enough to indicate that WP:GEOLAND is met (being named and having something in the area for a storm to tear up is not enough), and it certainly is not significant coverage for GNG. Hog Farm _Talk 04:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In combination with the Government weather report indicating that shingles were blown off of a roof (which implies some building), a cursory look on google maps shows that the location given on Wikipedia is within 2000 feet of what appears to be a house. This appears to be a sparely inhabited farming community and, per WP:GEOLAND, Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. This is one such place; the government weather report indicates legal recognition and that report (combined with the map and the fact that there is maintained farmland there) indicates that it is populated. WP:GNG doesn't matter; meeting WP:NGEO is sufficient to meet the first criterion of notability. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete I see nothing here that says that this was anything more than a flag stop. It was just a spot on the railroad in the middle of a bunch of farms with no testimony that it was ever considered a settlement unto itself, or even a vague locale. Mangoe (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNIS is the only source cited in the article, but this is unreliable and cannot confer legal recognition. No evidence of notability either under WP:GEOLAND#1 or WP:GNG.

Mhawk10 is wrong about what WP:GEOLAND says: we DO NOT keep articles simply because they are about a location that was inhabited (by someone? even one person? possibly no-one?). A government weather report does not confer legal recognition - how could it? "Legal recognition" requires more than a government document mentioning the location. "Legal recognition" requires a process of law, such as the issuing of a charter or incorporation - otherwise the phrase "legal recognition" has no meaning at all.

I mean come on: a shingle? So like literally there may have been a building there of some kind, inhabited or not we don't know? No article can be written on this subject. There is simply nothing to write about this place, because there are no sources giving it significant cover. As such it's also a GNG fail.

This comes right down to what we're doing on this here project. We are NOT creating directory listings. We ARE creating encyclopaedia articles. Wikipedia IS an encyclopaedia. It is NOT a gazetteer. FOARP (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All mentions I found were of a Kittler family, especially someone with the surname in Arkansas County being charged with murder in 1971; see here for example. Perhaps this was nothing more than a homestead/station/etc. named after a family who lived there? wizzito | say hello! 12:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - here's another Kittler who died one and one half miles east of a "Kittler Station". wizzito | say hello! 12:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sign whatsoever of either legal recognition or GNG-level coverage as required by WP:GEOLAND. Looking at the sources:
- NOAA - This one has several problems: A) The place where shingles were blown off was 1.1 miles East of Kittlers; B) The source doesn't say that the roof was on a house, and the building at that location sure looks like a Quonset hut type agricultural building to me; C) A mere mention in a government document doesn't count as legal recognition as a populated place , since these sources often just go by the nearest name that appears on the map.
- [22] - Please don't waste our time with autogenerated shit, there's clearly not a gay district out in the middle of a farm field.
- Google Maps - Please review WP:NGEO: "This guideline specifically excludes maps." A scattering of farms within a several-mile radius does not prove the existence of a community.
- Obituary - Yup, this confirms that it was a station.

No reliable source has been brought forward that describes this as a community or populated place of any sort; that label is entirely WP:OR made up by a Wiki editor. –dlthewave ☎ 18:34, 29 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. Tone 10:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moosjisee[edit]

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

This fails WP:NGEO. This reservoir is man-made and is therefore not a a natural feature. Instead, it's an artificial geographical feature, which has presumed notability only if it is a recognized culturally significant place (this reservoir does not appear to have such cultural status). This reservoir appears to also fail WP:GNG; I cannot find significant coverage of it. Because it fails both GNG and NGEO, this article should be deleted as non-notable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is not just your average reservoir. It is one of the five lakes on the Five Lakes Walk, which is one of the most popular hiking trails of the world-famous mountain village Zermatt. With its intense turquoise color and iconic Matterhorn in the background, it is a very popular photo subject and notability is certainly given. --MRB (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's quite widely mentioned in all sorts of travel-guides to Switzerland, though Google-searches are not helped by a vast number of hits for Mooji-tv trying to get us to see with the eyes of consciousness. I think one should be a bit careful of interpreting the wording of WP:NGEO in a narrow sense; the demand for recognized cultural significance is in a section on buildings and objects, and seems to apply much more to things like bridges and dams than to a large lake. It is probably intended to stop articles on things like run-of-the-mill motorway bridges, by differentiating their status from that of a great historical viaduct. A lake is almost always going to be quite a significant feature of a place, influencing every aspect of its economy and social situation. Distinguishing man-made lakes from natural lakes is somewhat unhelpful as both have the same impact on their locality. And sometimes we don't even know: The Broads in Norfolk, for example, were believed to be natural until the 1960s. Elemimele (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eldridge Corner, Arkansas[edit]

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

And Arkansas apparently has problematic GNIS stubs, as well. Topographic maps suggests this is just a named intersection, nothing useful on newspapers.com. 1981 USGS publication calls it a locale. The claim that it operates a school seems to be false. I can find no sources that would indicate a WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG pass here. Hog Farm _Talk 04:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are no hits in newspapers.com for "Eldridge Corner", just a couple for an "Eldridge corner" in Coffeyville, Kansas. Even obscure, unofficial places get at least a few mentions in the newspapers, even if it's something as mundane as a local publication reporting that "John Smith of Eldridge Corner is here visiting his sister Jane Doe." Here there be crickets. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of a notable community here. –dlthewave ☎ 16:36, 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. ✗plicit 11:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Femminella[edit]

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

Notability and stealth-promo concerns. Several of the publishers, such as "The Chicago Journal" and "The US News" have impressive sounding names but are not credible sources. Google search gives more crap sites like "US Reporter". User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 21 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) 03:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it its current form, the article is really problematic. It's now been shorn of the dubious sources, which means the references are (1) a conference-abstract that means someone Femminella knew did something routine; (2), (3) interviews; (4) his own company website; (5) another interview. (6) The Daily Trojan thing is the only possibly genuine source of notability. His main claim to notability seems to be being CEO of his company, but given that it's a start-up that is supposed to have launched a beta-test product this year, it's probably way too soon. I can't believe we've got an article explaining that he's "currently finishing up" his undergraduate degree. Good luck to him, he seems a decent chap, and may well become very influential. But at the moment what I'm finding on Google is an ambitious and well-intentioned young man promoting himself, almost everything being podcasts, interviews and youtubes. Elemimele (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable here, just big words. Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I completely agree with Elemimele's opinion. Mommmyy (talk) 20:20, 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. ✗plicit 03:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of youngest state leaders of democracies[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NLIST. There are no sources listed, and it is not clear to me that there are secondary sources that themselves have created a "List of youngest state leaders of democracies", where the list refers to "Head of state" rather than "Head of government" and includes ~~governor-generals~~governors-general. The article appears to be entirely composed of original research. As a result, I believe the article should be deleted. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have to question the extent of the research done for this article when it implies that John F. Kennedy was the youngest President of the United States. In fact, that distinction belongs to Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt took office from being Vice President when William McKinley was assassinated, a situation apparently not contemplated by this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ delete I don’t know much about whether this particular list is notable but it appears bad, confusing, inaccurate, WP:OR-laden, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE—- precedent might be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current longest-ruling non-royal national leaders. Draftify or good ol’ WP:TNT at bare minimum. Dronebogus (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN, OR, STATS, etc. Note to nom: I believe they're governors-general. pburka (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct. I've updated it after reading this. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of trivial information. Definitely WP:LC and WP:OR. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have: 10 youngest serving state leaders and 10 youngest state leaders (since 1945); what reason is there to distinguish "democracies"? How is democracy defined? California, Ontario and the Canton of Ticino are democracies and states. Which leaders? Heads of state? Governors? An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list with far too vague terms to produce consistency. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see the article as WP:OR. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 01:42, 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Engler[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:PROF with no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to prove the authenticity as no significant coverage reference is added Wikisuper945 Talk Here 01:20, 12 November 2021 (IST)

Note, Wikisuper945 (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock-puppet of Marathi.Wiki.Editor (talk · contribs) Elemimele (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ (vote changed, explanation below) he does seems to be of some authority as he is cited as a religious expert in a number of articles Why doesn't Easter have a fixed date? – CBC Calgary, – 'Pope Francis Effect' Partly Credited With Increase in Exorcisms – ABC News, and Catholic Bishop's assisted death guidelines to help priests save "the person’s soul" – Calgary Herald. These pass WP:RS; however, I feel for some reason that they don't really confer notability unto him other than someone who the news asks religious questions to. It's feels like a borderline case here to me. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 14:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He passes WP:NPROF#C8 as co-editor of the journal Religion. gnu 57 01:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genericusername57 C8 says, "The person has been head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area." I'm not sure that co-editor applies. SL93 (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that the professor may have notability per WP:AUTHOR based on the reviews at Oxford Handbook of the Study of Religion and other reviews such as this. Pinging Wikisuper945 and Snood1205 to see what they think. SL93 (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we should probably discount Wikisuper945's vote...they just signed up and went straight to participating in AfD. Very suspicious. SL93 (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are based on three factors: (1) he doesn't necessarily pass WP:GNG on his own per my arguments above (2) he should not be considered under WP:NPROF because that's his weakest way to notability (3) he arguably, but only arguably, passes WP:NAUTHOR. However, with (1) and (3) combined plus WP:IAR, it feels like there's enough here to keep in terms of notability. He seems worthwhile enough to keep to me. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 03:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why to discontinue my vote?, as just few days back i have singed up and participated in AfD. what makes you feel suspicious in this? (Just a question)SL93. this is right that i am a new user and trying to learn as much as many thing i can and even trying hard to avoid consequences but during the learning i have received a suggestion to edit and review this page and so far what i have learned through, i come to my vote that the article don't have any significant coverage to prove the authenticity.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisuper945 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 14 November 2021 (IST)

Wikisuper945 99% of the time in my experience, a new editor that participates in AfD quickly without much other activity is a SOCKPUPPET. I'm not saying that you are one, but I am thinking that you at least don't know the guidelines and policies enough for AfD due to being a new editor. I'm not sure what you mean by authenticity. SL93 (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One really ought to assume good faith, but in this case SL93 (talk · contribs) was right: Wikisuper945 was blocked as a sock-puppet of Marathi.Wiki.Editor Elemimele (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as I can tell, and this is not my area of expertise but I do have a basic indication in this respect, 1057 citations in the field of religious studies would satisfy several WP:PROF criteria. If he currently has a professorship this would more than seal the deal, but I'm not entirely sure he does. In any case his impact as discussed previously, indicates he's a notable academic. This isn't quantum physics, so don't look for 50k citations as evidence of notability. PK650 (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being the editor of several religious studies texts, "The Oxford handbook of the study of religion" would seem to confer notability. He's got well over 500 texts that come up in GBooks, a rather large body of educational works. Oaktree b (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very significant publications.Multipleco-editorships, (I wouldn;t be that sure about just one of them) DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 4 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 Draftify. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel E. Waldron[edit]

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

Nightenbelle (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what's the rationale for deletion? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF, WP:AUTHOR, etc. I searched several of his books but did not find even a single RS review. (t · c) buidhe 19:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This needs to be considered as part of the nomination for Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, of which he is president and perhaps founder. If that article is kept (and the current votes suggest that it will be), there is a case for keeping this or at worst redirecting to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I agree with Peterkingiron. I came to add a page for Sam Waldron partly due to his role in the start of this seminary (there are two of other seminaries that use the same model IRBS and RBS). CBTS is interesting because it turned a congregational pastor mentoring center, at Heritage Baptist Church in Owensboro, in to a seminary. The local training center that became CBTS it seems was formed on the model provided by Albert N. Martin's Trinity Training Academy, now defunct after his retirement, that previously resided along side the [Trinity Classical School] at Trinity Baptist Church in Mountville, NJ. The previous Heritage Pastor, Ted Christman, and Sam Waldron were both connected to this program. Additional motivation for adding his page is due to his apparent role in shaping the theological viewpoint the above institutions embrace. The problem with citing this influence is that he is the author of much of the content thus it is not "independent". I am not connected to this group of folks but, looking at the group, the lines are clearly connected. He is the one who gives the "modern" theological defenses for many of the particulars that these three seminaries and their associated churches stand on: the regulative principle of the church, Plurality of Elders, a modern exposition of the London Baptist Confession of faith 1689 on which they all stand. It is a narrow (but growing) corner that these schools fit in: namely carrying out their belief that a to-be pastors's training in practical ministry should be done that person's pastors and thus, the role of the seminary is to provide what a local church's pastors cannot: academic rigor. Given the small subset of schools who actually do this, once a predominant "modern" defense of attending principles is made, others don't need to write another "modern" defense. Which means there is not a lot to cite on the importance of the individual's contribution to the movement that is forming. Kyle.Mullaney (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't evaluate this page for deletion as the nom provided no rationale for deletion and with that it's nearly impossible to argue for keep or delete. Are we arguing under WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF? If WP:NPROF he qualifies by being president of his seminary, although that is a rather tenuous keep. My larger point is there is not real way to discuss this properly as nomination is unclear. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 04:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Draftify Whether or not the nominator said so, the rationale for deletion is obvious: he meets none of the relevant notability criteria. They could be either WP:PROF nor WP:author nor WP:ANYBIO. We can evaluate all of them. The head of a small seminary is not the head of a major institution intended by WP:PROF. As author, there's an inadequately sourced assertion that he wrote a standard book in his religious denomination. For anybio, there's no substantial coverage. But the assetions in the discussion above would indicate he might be notable--if they were in the article. I suggest that the simplest course would be to draftify so they can be added. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per DGG, since the subject may meet WP:CLERGY. Failing that, redirect to Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary. Miniapolis 03:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Miniapolis and DGG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:14, 7 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. Daniel (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonlinear optics Quantum computer[edit]

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

The article is written as if the quantum computer based on non-linear optics exists. In fact, there are one or two theoretical proposals, and one group working towards an experimental realization of a quantum gate (from where, even if successfully demonstrated, will still be years or decades until coupling of qubits have been realized, and decades until something we could call "a quantum computer". WP:TOOSOON. Ymblanter (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, with Linear optical quantum computing for now. SailingInABathTub (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourced to ScienceDaily, phys.org, and ResearchGate, so it's non-encyclopedic material that doesn't deserve to be merged anywhere. I'd suggest a redirect, but the title is too awkward a term to be a good search query. XOR'easter (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ymblanter. One of a dozen speculative ways to make a quantum computer. This is basically just at the conceptual stage. Statements in the article: "It is more energy efficient and much less susceptible to noise. It will result in better GPU,TPU/IPU or FPGA." are just WP:CRYSTAL. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 21:35, 4 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. Daniel (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dərə Şahbuz (archeological site)[edit]

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

Unable to find any references on google to this location. It was also created by a blocked user whom was blocked for copyright violations. Bobherry Talk Edits 17:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the lack of sources is a result of language bias more than anything else, so ordinarily I'd want to argue in support, but: this already exists (in near-identical stub form, but with better map) on the Azerbaijani wikipedia; and I can't get a single solid hit in any language out of my institutional library either, just one dud that appears to be about the present settlement of Shahbuz. -- asilvering (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You wouldn't really expect a minor archaeological site in an isolated exclave of Azerbaijan to be easy to find on Google, would you? But there are two scholarly sources cited in the article and, although I can't read Azerbaijani, I don't see any reason not to take them on good faith. I don't think the creator's block is relevant because there has never been any concerns about the verifiability of his contributions, only copyright problems. – Joe (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe Fully agree that the creator's block isn't relevant in this case. -- asilvering (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not all archaeological sites are notable. In this case the article creator appears closely related to the author if the sources - possibly the same person. It may be a case of an archaeologist writing an article for every site he’s ever worked on, or there may be some political agenda. In any case, if the subject is in fact “a minor archaeological site” why is it notable? Who apart from the guy who dug it up has written about it? Mccapra (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of archaeological sites are notable, because by definition, if we know about them, they have been investigated and probably excavated. Excavations especially almost always generate a large amount of high quality coverage (peer reviewed articles, monographs, etc.), because they are big projects involving multiple specialists and there is an ethical duty to publish the results in depth. So my comment that this site is "minor" shouldn't be taken to mean "not notable", just "maybe not of enough interest to non-specialists that people have published a lot of Google-indexed sources about it". – Joe (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:AGF, WP:GRAVEDANCING, and WP:NEXIST. Unless the behaviour the guy was block for was related to faking articles or being negligent in citing articles, I think we should just assume good faith that the citations are real. Deleting this editor's articles just because they engaged in copyvios would be WP:GRAVEDANCING, though it would certainly be wise to see if they were doing it systematically. I can't access these references but so long as they exist per WP:NEXIST that is sufficient. FOARP (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it sufficient, though? It's only one page of one of the two sources. I've seen things sink as "not WP:SIGCOV" with more than this. Do archaeological sites get special rules that allow them to count as notable on the strength of a single source and a single other passing mention? -- asilvering (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fair amount of hits in GScholar searching for "Dərə Şahbuz", in what I assume is either Armenian or Azerbijani, I can't speak either language. Oaktree b (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I get zero. Are you searching without quotations? "Dərə" just means "valley", so if you don't put quotes around both words you're going to get a lot of irrelevant stuff. Many of which you can read the titles of even without speaking the language. I see a linguistics paper and an ornithology paper, for example. -- asilvering (talk) 02:17, 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 speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wavetec[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Published by UPE User:Mathieu Vouillamoz when it should go through AFC. Sourced with PR advertorials. Complete failure of WP:CORPDEPTH, in parts due to no in-depth article. Previous AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wavetec attached. J. D. S. Kumar (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a local small company. It's working since 1980s, expanded to several countries and we can find a lot of coverage related to them (Independent genuine coverage and not just press releases). The article used sources from media channels like BBC, Express Tribune, Gulf News, Khaleej Times so the nominator claim that it is "Sourced with PR advertorials" is invalid. While getting idea about Wikipedia guidelines and rules, I once found an article WP:THREE and although it's just a essay but makes sense.
- And I don't know if this is the right place to discuss but I saw a strange pattern of the nominator "J. D. S. Kumar" because the account is created just 20 hours ago, did only 4 edits and all of them are related to nominating my articles/edits for deletion or labeling me as a paid editor. Can't be a coincidence. Mathieu Vouillamoz (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the sources mentioned in the article and doing a Google search about the company, it looks notable. 203.135.47.9 (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has references from:

Meets notability guidelines. VincentGod11 (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a lot of references available. It's notable. Billymufc (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The references above do mention the company, but I don't think they quite hit WP:CORPDEPTH, as pointed out in the nom. PianoDan (talk) 21:53, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manayunk Wall[edit]

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

This doesn't really have notability on its own, is almost entirely inherited from Philadelphia International Cycling Classic, and is pretty much a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Philadelphia International Cycling Classic#Manayunk Wall. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 03:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 03:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 03:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:02, 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 redirect to Sony. Daniel (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Semiconductor Solutions[edit]

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

There is no indication that Sony Semiconductor Solutions is independently notable from its parent company, Sony. Since subsidiaries do not inherit notability from their parent corporation and I believe the subsidiary fails WP:NCORP when evaluated in it own right, I propose that this article be redirected to Sony, where the subsidiary can be adequately covered in the context of its parent corporation without the need for a separate article. — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Sony: The present article contains no claim to specific notability, just an unsourced list of company sites; fails WP:NCORP. The summary coverage of this division in its company context at Sony#Imaging_&_Sensing_Solutions is adequate. AllyD (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Sony. No reliable sources listed. Multi7001 (talk) 03:03, 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 draftify. Daniel (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Tierney[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on his appearances in the League of Ireland and for the Ireland U21's, and based on an upcoming move to Scotland, none of which satisfies WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (or, failing that, delete). Seems WP:TOOSOON. WP:NFOOTY is not met, and all material coverage (that isn't match report type routine coverage) seems to be about (proposed?) move to Scotland. This type of single event/news coverage doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Either delete (and wait). Or draftify (and wait). Guliolopez (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks to be WP:SIGCOV of the subject here, here, here, and here. Pretty wide-spread coverage on a transfer of his here, here, here, and here. Also has what could be considered WP:ROUTINE coverage but is a bit more meaty here and here. GauchoDude (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as coverage is not enough to pass WP:NFOOTY. 79.66.223.74 (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ross Tierney is a professional footballer Why isn't that coverage enough to pass, what will be enough? It seems on Wikipedia it's our way or the highway. Whenever it's someone outside the moderator/wiki staff position you have to assert dominance. Relax it's just a wiki page. So you delete the page and then recreate it once he plays for Motherwell? Are you going to personally put in the work and create the new page? What exactly passes for confirmation that he's moving to Motherwell? Are they all lying. I think it's just you don't want to admit it was a mistake the original guy made for considering it for deletion as he didn't know he was moving to Motherwell. But we can't have anyone admitting mistakes now can we? 23:11, 25 November 2021 (utc) nominated for young player of the year award aswell here

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as per links added by GauchoDude, I think there would be enough evidence of SIGCOV to pass GNG - maybe the IP above could add those and improve the story instead of bitching about the process (being signed by a club doesn't count the same as playing for them)...? Also is there not something about the League of Ireland now being a FPL? Haven't checked, maybe still under discussion. Anyway, if there's deemed still not to be enough, it would be a case of Draftify for a few weeks as - if the reports are anything to go by - he is good enough to go into the Motherwell team and thus pass NFOOTY almost immediately in January. So any work that goes into it now wouldn't be wasted, just likely 'hidden' for a short while until all criteria are met. Crowsus (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced that the sources in the article or unearthed at AfD actually meet the criteria for significant independent, secondary coverage. The pieces reporting on the death of his brother are almost identical in content and are half the same quotes from Tierney: this means the sources are neither intellectually independent of each other nor secondary and independent of the subject (interviews have long been held insufficiently independent for GNG consideration). The same is true for articles discussing his signing to Motherwell, which also comprise primarily the same non-independent quotes from Graham Alexander and therefore cannot contribute to notability. The Irish Sun coverage is similarly mostly quotes from Tierney, many of which are him talking about his teammate so aren't even relevant for his own biography. If playing a game for Motherwell is truly expected to garner IRS SIGCOV, then I guess draftifying is also an option. JoelleJay (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)*don't delete Ross Tierney Here here is proof from Motherwell's own website[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decrypted (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, has not received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, this has been deleted before for promotional material and it does not appear that major changes have been made BOVINEBOY2008 22:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did some major cleanup, but I am not entirely convinced that what I found is enough to establish notability. I found one sole review from Nerdly, which is a decent start, but it's not enough on its own and the other source I found wasn't really heavy enough either (Variety). If more sources become available in the future then I'm not opposed to it being recreated but the sourcing would need to be reliable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable film. It went straight to digital release. The "first bitcoin comedy" quote comes from the company's website. – The Grid (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:06, 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 procedural close per WP:PCLOSE, because AfD is the wrong forum for discussing redirects. I have moved the discussion to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 29#Pô departmént. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pô departmént[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pô departmént

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

Non-sense accent on the second term, only a vary old typo left unmaintained for years, but never used anywhere. After I had properly renamed here, I just wanted to nominate the generated redirect for speedy deletion (matching the current WP policy for deletions: WP:R3 only applies to recently created redirects from "implausible typos or misnomers"), but someone (anonymous IP User:91.219.149.124) reverted this request. There's absolutely no value in keeping these typos, invalid in all languages (accent in the English term, but still not the correct orthography in French, official in that location), even if this is very old and concerns a page that was just a very early stub with errors and undeveloped. It was also not linked from anywhere (any wiki, or other external sites). The term "departmént" is clearly a misnomer. The name also itself is still ambiguous with present-day department in Burkina Faso and the former department in Northern Italy during the French Empire: there's a separate old discussion for fixing the page name as well for the Italian page and avoid incorrect mixes between the two topics. I have also fived (but kept) other possible names with their redirects, because they are plausible, but NOT this one.

Note also that I have also copied "as is" the old talk into the correct target talk page for the Italian topic. -- verdy_p (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 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.