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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mirchi Music Awards Bangla[edit]

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

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

Doesn't satisfy GNG as per Wikipedia:NAWARDS. Di xiku 15:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable award. Azuredivay (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of reference sources 007sak (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Dawlat[edit]

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

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

the article is not about him, but his two companies, neither of which are notable. this is pure promotionalism , translated from the equally promotionalism article in the frWP. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. DGG, I'm surprised you didn't nominate this back in 2014 when you first came across it. There seems to be reasonable coverage of the companies (Forbes and Business Insider), so they could be repurposed into an article about one of them, but the founder does not seem to be notable. The biographical information is unsourced. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in 2014 I redirected it to one of the companies, but it was restored and I'm unfortunately unable to watch everything I edit. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC) --[reply]

• Delete per DGG fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:01, 18 October 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. Sandstein 09:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Kembe[edit]

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

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

Non-notable? scope_creep^Talk 18:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. This encyclopedia entry on hip-hop in Sudan discusses his work briefly. He is also discussed briefly in this JSTOR encyclopedia, but the page is hidden from view. This official handbook on fishing by the government of Sudan oddly has a culture section which briefly mentions him and his music on page 22. This book highlights his work as a musician activist whose work is politically involved in Sudan (i.e. peace activist). This book mentions that he is an exiled artist. While a lot of these are brief, one gets the sense that this a well known artist in Sudan, and whose work is politically engaged to the point that writers outside of Sudan are paying attention. I suspect, more in depth foreign language sources from Sudan likely exist to pass SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per (at least) WP:CSK #4. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MAKO Surgical Corp.[edit]

MAKO Surgical Corp. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I love Wikipedians, for other user, Mister Suitcase right here edit, but revision restored, but MAKO Surgical Corp. was acquired by Stryker which no longer traded, the acquisition includes RIO and RESTORIS, and added aftermath section has been restored, and Sid Caesar died on 2014. 4KidsFriend (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 22:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.244.80.11 (talk)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Once notable, always notable. The fact that the company was acquired by another one is worth mentioning in the article, but isn't a reason to delete the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see any reason to delete, the Stryker Corporation is already wordy and doesn't need more content merged into it. NemesisAT (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG. There's a lot of socking going on here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: Per WP:SKCRIT#3 and 4: bad-faith and completely erroneous nomination by a block-evading sockpuppet. JavaHurricane 12:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: added why the 2013 acquisition by Stryker remains notable and important to the company's direction, citing four recent articles. I got a warning of an unreliable source but haven't been able to find which one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AggressivelyTacky (talk • contribs) 21:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Prestage[edit]

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

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

I don't believe the subject is eligible for a standalone article as there's not enough information about him. All the refs presented and a bunch that I've found just mention him without going in detail. I suggest creating a redirect to Darjeeling Himalayan Railway Less Unless (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If he was a member of the Legislative Council of Bengal, he would clearly pass WP:POLITICIAN. However, I can't find any reliable sources that confirm this, although here we have a claim that it appears in a print source. Even without this, as the chief developer of an extremely significant engineering project, who clearly has been written about in print sources, I think he does pass WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Grace's Guide to British Industrial History, which I think is a reliable source, confirms he was a member of the Bengal Legislative Council, affirming WP:NPOL. As cited in the Grace's Guide link, an additional offline source exists as well. Curbon7 (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NPOL. Mottezen (talk) 04:56, 14 October 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 List of centenarian masters track and field athletes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Rabinowitz (runner)[edit]

Philip Rabinowitz (runner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:BIO1E. Non-notable centenarian sprinter who is only notable for a Guinness world record. Could redirect article and merge relevant content to List of centenarian masters track and field athletes. Natg 19 (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge to List of centenarian masters track and field athletes per nom's alternative proposal. WP:TRIVIA which is nowhere near GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Árpád Doppler[edit]

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

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

It has been tagged with no sources since Dec 2009. I could not find any sources in Google News or Google Books that covered him- only listings and directory type entries. FiddleheadLady (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FiddleheadLady (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FiddleheadLady (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – A few sources have been added, and the book Die Ehrenmitglieder der Staatstheater Stuttgart 1912–2018 also contains a biography; unfortunately I don't have access to that book, only the table of contents, but I believe we do have a case of sources existing, sufficient to show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 20:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bonadea.Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – There are entries in several encyclopedias for him. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep already sourced. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.-- Dewritech (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DigNet[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP, no WP:IS; any usable content could be incorporated in the the article 8-1-1. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rachelle Beinart[edit]

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

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

Subject is not notable per WP:ENTERTAINER. Article sources only mention her name and nothing more. Google search results yield very little too. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 13 October 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. ✗plicit 23:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Mountain[edit]

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

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

after the removal of refspam and a search for RS, I see no indication this meets WP:SINGER or WP:GNG Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Marginally passes criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO with multiple independent album reviews. Using the wayback machine, here is the album review in The Irish Post from the external links: [1]. This is another review of his first album: [2] This is a review of his second album. Here is an interview. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 4meter4. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The article has been moved to The Jewish cause: an introduction to a different Israeli history. There is consensus that cleanup is needed, but no consensus regarding exactly what should be done. As the author Moshe Berent is a redlink it cannot be merged to that title. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Matter of the Jews[edit]

The Matter of the Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable book lacking WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE search yields only irrelevant results and the single source used in the article is not a review, rather just information about the book that does not verify notability. Fails WP:NBOOK. Waddles 🗩 🖉 03:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 03:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 03:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 03:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 03:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify There seems to be perfectly usable references, and possibly reviews to show notability in the Hebrew WP version of the article, as judged by Google Translate. I think it's reckless nominating an article for deletion for lack of sourcing without checking the linked WP article in the relevant language. IThisdoes not seem to be an actual translation, but similar to the situationwhere people translate parts of an article from another WP without also transcribing the references. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete: Added "External links" section, renamed per WorldCat -- Thanks for motivating me to add external links and adjust the title according to WorldCat. These corrections were absolutely necessary. The book made quite a splash, and Berent is being constantly invited to talk about it on high-brow shows, podcasts, YouTube channels, etc. This makes it a very notable and salient topic. --Guybas (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Guybas: What's needed is independent, reliable sources in form of citations, such as reviews and awards, not descriptions and podcasts/videos. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @WaddlesJP13: Please note that the Open University of Israel and Ariel University are in fact independent and reliable sources. Both provide academic reviews: the former as a lengthy seminar / discussion, the latter as a critique / review article.

• Keep. Passes WP:NBOOK based on the sources in the Hebrew language wiki.4meter4 (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - until those other sources are added to the article (or there is a discussion in English on whether they are reliable). - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Repurpose as a mage for the author; . It's not his only book. We need coverage of alternative views. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- We cannot have an article on every book that is published. The external links appear to be links to reviews, which means there are enough sources. However, I do not know if the book is notable (if not, delete). If it is controversial, the content of the reviews criticising it ought to be covered. Otherwise it is a mere ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 17 October 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. WP:G5 (Dedy Tisna Amijaya) ~TNT (she/her • talk) 21:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sulang Hill[edit]

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

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

Supposed translation of id:Bukit Salang, but no such article exits at id.wiki, therefore it is impossible to refer to the original to attempt a better translation. The article was created by a known sock (now blocked), and comprises largely gibberish. Article was PROD'ed (by me) and PROD removed. The editor then added a bunch of sources that appear to have little to do with the topic.

Searches for "Sulang Hill" or "Hematang Sulang" show no meaningful results.

Apparently the sock farm of which this article's creator was part were known for creating other such gibberish. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kepaksian Sekala Brak Kuno). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 13 October 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 Honey Bunny Ka Jholmaal#Movies. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Vexations (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Bunny in Bank Robbery[edit]

Honey Bunny in Bank Robbery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, no reviews. Tagged for notability since August 2021. Created and edited by blocked sockpuppets of Dmjoshi12. Vexations (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Honey Bunny Ka Jholmaal#Movies, retain categories as-is Like nearly every animated series 'movie' not on film since 2000, it's just a double episode. Nate • (chatter) 02:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Honey Bunny Ka Jholmaal#Movies per above. Dhawangupta (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]
• Redirect to Honey Bunny Ka Jholmaal#Movies I like the proposal by Nate/User:Mrschimpf. Happy to withdraw the nomination and redirect. Vexations (talk) 20:34, 17 October 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 20:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dünýä Nurmämmedowa[edit]

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

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

No claims of meeting GNG in the slightest. Only source in the article doesn't seem that reliable. Other than that it's only Wikipedia mirrors. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 16:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 16:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 16:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 16:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability.Brayan ocaner (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:04, 18 October 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.

Y. S. Chandrashekhar[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y. S. Chandrashekhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Don't see any evidence the subject passes WP:GNG. Search only turns up a few references to him as the editor of a journal. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems to pass WP:Prof#C8, maybe even WP:Prof#C1, if GS profile were not so poorly curated. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Withdrawing nomination Wow, do I feel dumb. Had been going through and improving a bunch of highly peacock profiles, thread led me to this one, and somehow the "he's an academic, WP:PROF applies" circuit didn't connect in my brain. Sorry to waste your time, Xxanthippe. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amundi Pioneer[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:ORG. Largely sourced to press releases, with the puffery not filtered out. Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Agree with nom; the sources are press releases, casual mentions and primary sources, none of which can contribute towards notability. Ravenswing 21:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 14 October 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 Diablo III. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Martens[edit]

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

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

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I". It was deprodded by User:Dream Focus with an edit summary "notable from accomplishments". I am sorry but what accomplishments? The subject seems to have a reasonably successful career but that's not the same as meeting NBIO. There are no awards, no in-depth coverage of his life or said accomplishments - only a few mentions in passing that he worked on this or another game, plus a few interviews that are generally not about him but about projects he worked/works on. The article hasn't improved at all in half a year since the PROD, and I doubt it can be improved anytime soon given the lack of better sources, at least that I can find. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The short article says he is one of the two designers of Diablo III, that a notable game that sold over 30 million copies. The subject specific guidelines for creative professions judges them playing a significant part in a notable creation. Dream Focus 16:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have a stance yet, but that argument alone isn't enough - it violates WP:NOTINHERITED. There's got to be more to be a valid keep rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 18:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that NOTINHERITED applies. Most corporate game developers are pretty anonymous people that stay out of the news. They usually only have an article if they founded a studio or something like that. ApLundell (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Diablo III. Not independently notable. KidAd • SPEAK 20:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• https://www.cgmagonline.com/interviews/talking-orcs-and-humans-with-kevin-martens/ He's been interviewed and talked about for his work. Dream Focus 23:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, but it's about his work more so than about him, and Wikipedia:Interviews are below-average sources... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a pointless essay. Interviews have always counted as reliable sources. They talk about him, his life, and his achievements in the game industry. All interviews talk about what the person does, what they are notable for. It clearly counts as significant coverage in a reliable source. Dream Focus 08:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a very useful essay, as it reminds us that most interviews are just a step away from SPS, as they repeat words by the subject ad verbatim. While they come with some editorial oversight, it doesn't change the fact that what we have in such cases is the subject speaking about themselves; at best, the usual editorial oversight concerns which parts of the interview are published and which (if any) are not. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We're discussing the interview as indicating notability, not using it as a source of information in the article. Reliable sources believe someone is notable enough to write about them and/or interview them, then that counts towards their notability. They are independent from the subject since they are not owned by them or the company they work for. The general notability guidelines have thus been met. Dream Focus 09:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps we have to agree to disagree as I don't believe this niche interview meets the requirement of being "Independent of the subject", since they are just quoting him verbatim. See also WP:QS _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It is clearly defined at Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline as: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. Dream Focus 13:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Even all that aside, aren't we just talking about a single interview here? A single source is fundamentally not enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. Your argument has bigger issues here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Arguably, an interview is significantly "half"(?)-coproduced by the subject themselves... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That article could be a perfectly useful source for an article about Diablo III. Nobody doubts that Kevin Martens is an expert about the development of Diablo III. That is not the same question as whether or not he has independent notability. ApLundell (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - WP:GNG not met, especially for a WP:BLP. There's minimal content anyways, the "article" isn't much more than someone converting a table of his development credits to the barest and most basic of sentences. Sergecross73 msg me 11:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - No real independent notability is demonstrated or asserted. It's not like much content would be lost. Besides his CV, the article's content is three sentences. Two describing his love of scifi and fantasy, and one saying that he had difficulty adapting to America. (from Canada.) ApLundell (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While the GNG is not met, there is arguably - I will not say for certain - sufficient reliable sourcing to have WP:NCREATIVE #3 be met, however, my understanding on NCREATIVE has tended to be that this is when we are talking projects developed by an individual or very very small team (2, 3 or so people). While he being a co-lead and thus a key person on D3's development is an important and critical role, we know that he was only one of dozens (if not towards 100+) people involved in the game, diluting how well NCREATIVE applies here. But I am only pointing this out, since this goes to Dream Focus's point above, but may not be sufficient to keep. --Masem (t) 19:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You bring this argument fairly often, but the section that contains it begins as follows:

People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards.

(emphasis mine)

NCREATIVE should be used as an indication that a subject could be notable, as to determine whether additional research could be viable, not to actually establish notability. The ultimate determination should still go through GNG, which this subject apparently fails (based on the comments above). IceWelder [✉] 06:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that's why he stopped short of an actual keep stance. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Panjshir[edit]

Flag of Panjshir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It's unclear what the topic of this article is. There is no such thing as the "Flag of Panjshir," this article simply describes flags of other entities that are flown by belligerents in the ongoing Panjshir conflict. Panjshir itself has no flag to describe.

The designs in this article are described in better detail at Flag of Afghanistan, so the reader is better served by being simply reading that. I don't think Flag of Panjshir should become a redirect, though, as the title refers to something nonexistent and I doubt any reader will key that search term.

This article also appears to rely on original research. For example, the sentence "The internet, especially Amazon, have taken this and adapted it alongside phrases such as 'Panjshir Strong'." simply cites an Amazon listing, which is a non-notable primary source.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 05:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Pretty much just WP:SYNTH very loosely tied together. This subject is not an actual thing. Curbon7 (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and SALT - the mind boggles. An article about a flag that can't say for certain what that flag is. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • SALTing is completely out of order, as this page was only created this once. Curbon7 (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I wasn't being totally serious or expecting anyone to follow through on that. It was hyperbole. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:51, 17 October 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) 05:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danze Edwin[edit]

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

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

Notability is debatable. Most of the coverage appears to be paid publicity/PR. KH-1 (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, while at first glance this person may seem to have received coverage, I can concur that it is all paid PR in unreliable publications, and therefore he does not pass WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, This person has received coverage. from different sources and publications forexample https://nilepost.co.ug/author/danze/, https://nextradio.co.ug/members/danze-edwin-aka-deejahn/ and https://www.ceo.co.ug/profile-from-digital-marketing-to-radio-presenting-danze-edwin-shares-his-career-journey-and-tips-on-merging-new-media-data-to-drive-conversation-on-radio/ hence being notable.--Kitomaboy2020 (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first two are not independent of the individual (and not SIGCOV), and the third is a promo piece.-KH-1 (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Per rationale by KH-1 and Devonian Wombat who makes the argument I was going to make prior reading their comment. In addiction What we have here is a bunch of interviews and blatant churnalism. Celestina007 (talk) 15:12, 13 October 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) 05:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Gordon[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a filmmaker and web series creator, not properly referenced as passing WP:CREATIVE. Although this was kept in a bludgeony flurry of repeated rapid renominations in 2011, our notability and sourcing standards have evolved significantly in the intervening decade, and the sourcing here falls very far short of where it would have to be -- it's referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as IMDb and podcasts and blogs and YouTube video interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person, while the two marginally acceptable sources (Wired and Ain't it Cool) are just brief glancing namechecks of his existence in listicles, not substantive enough to carry him over WP:GNG all by themselves if they're the best sources on offer. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of much more substantial coverage and critical analysis than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Per rationale by Bearcat. I concur with their detailed rationale. Celestina007 (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This poorly sourced BLP has been on Wikipedia for far too long. Minkai (talk to me)_{(see where I screwed up)} 12:14, 14 October 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. With even distribution of keep and delete votes, there is no clear consensus to delete or keep. Article has already been re-listed twice. No prejudice against speedy re-nomination. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rockin' Jump[edit]

Rockin' Jump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

no evidence of notability; no refs besides mere notices about individual parks -- fails WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I made the article less awful by removing some self-references and adding some WP:RS references about a child getting lost at one location, a sudden shutdown of another franchise, and a municipality revoking the business license of yet another one after some violence. I think there is enough bad news to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Which of those references meets WP:NCORP? I've read them and I don't see any that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I find this rather unfair. Trampoline parks are fairly routine nowadays so they're highly unlikely to generate much coverage in a positive sense. They only generate coverage if something goes wrong. As such, it's really hard for us to maintain a neutral point of view (our sources can't). Is it fair on a business, or its users, to cherry-pick all the things that have gone wrong over the years to create an article that is entirely negative (as we needs must, given the sourcing problem), when the truth is that 99.99% of the subject's business is positive and completely un-notable? It might be more neutral to admit that the business is not notable and delete. At the moment we have the rather unsatisfactory situation of an article that basically says the business exists (and nothing much else) but bases this on sources whose message wasn't "it exists", but was "it messed up", so we're not really summarising the sources either. It's a genuine dilemma. To be clear: if a chain of trampoline parks became notable because it was outstandingly bad/unsafe, it would merit an article, but if a chain of trampoline parks is merely a non-notable chain much like every other chain, going about its normal business and happens to acquire a few articles on mishaps because that's the nature of the business, then in my view it remains rather un-notable. Elemimele (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, appears to be enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. A chain with 41 locations feels big enough to merit an article to me. NemesisAT (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you point me to whatever guideline you're referring to that lists "enough coverage" and "XX locations" as being part of the criteria for notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for estblishing notability. Not even close. The references are all based on announcements (fails WP:ORDING) with no in-depth coverage (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or fail WP:ILLCON. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 22 October 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khin One[edit]

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

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

The article has two sources, which appear to be lyrics of songs by the subject in Burmese or Thai (neither of which I can read, I rely on machine translation). There is an article in Burmese at https://my.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%80%81%E1%80%84%E1%80%BA%E1%80%9D%E1%80%99%E1%80%BA%E1%80%B8 which has no sources at all. Vexations (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-08 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Verspaget[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played for or managed a club in a WP:FPL or a senior national team. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator failed to show any sign of WP:Before. Verspaget plays in the Dutch Eredivisie, the highest national football league, where she is an important player (example here). She meets GNG by coverage in multiple independent reliable sources: Algemeen Dagblad: here; Eindhovens Dagblad here and here. A local news source here. And just nice to read here. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Playing in the Eredivisie Vrouwen doesn't make someone notable. Source 1 is routine coverage (she scored a goal), source 2 is routine (she tore her cruciate ligament) source 3 is a quote from Verspagen and from a press release, source 4 is a couple of paragraphs shared with Pleun Raaijmakers, source 5 is routine (person comes back from injury) and 6 is from the sponsors of the league she plays in. Dougal18 (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that source 5 is more than a passing mention. Not sure about the rest, I agree that they aren't clear cut on the SIGCOV element Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t agree that these sources are routine coverage. An injury, a transfer, an interview is news and a reason to start writing an article about her with also background information and not a “regular event”. And even if people still have the opinion that these articles are routine, it’s not a valid reason per Wikipedia:What is and is not routine coverage that states 1) "routine coverage" is not a disqualification for notability. 2) "routine coverage" may indeed be significant enough to surpass Wikipedia's general notability guideline. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If Verspaget hadn't been injured 2+5 would have never been written and this would be a delete. When a sportperson is relying on stories about their injuries to pass GNG then that goes to show how unnotable they are. Dougal18 (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“If…, then…” is never a valid deletion argument. Keep looking at the facts. SportsOlympic (talk)

She was injured and came back from the injury. Two (stretching multiple sources to the limit) websites wrote about it. Those facts? Dougal18 (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SportsOlympic. She is evidently a significant figure in Dutch ladies' football and the sources above will ensure GNG. Article needs to be developed, not deleted. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She is such a "significant figure" she's won no trophies and no international caps. Dougal18 (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s about coverage, not about achievements. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I don't see anything in WP:GNG about a need to win glittering prizes. How many football articles would we have to delete if that was the main criterion? No Great Shaker (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"She is evidently a significant figure in Dutch ladies' football" On what basis? It can't be for her unsuccessful playing career. Dougal18 (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Significant coverage. SportsOlympic (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She gets two articles written purely because of her injury. That's it. The susanrozemeijer.nl article is of dubious reliability. Keeping this discriminates against players who don't get injured and have their stories in the press. Dougal18 (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - playing in the Eredivisie Vrouwen is irrelevant; as noted above, paying in the league does not confer notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. However, based on sources presented, WP:GNG is clearly met and she is notable. Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 20:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:GNG as demonstrated above by SportsOlympic. NemesisAT (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: clearly passes WP:GNG. Seany91 (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – passes the WP:GNG hurdle per sources above. gidonb (talk) 16:04, 16 October 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. While the keep argument provided additional references, two of them are interviews with this year's winner, the third being about her win. It failed to address the other participants concerns, particularly Robert McClenon's assessment that such references fail to provide significant coverage of the pageant itself. ✗plicit 10:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Aura International[edit]

Miss Aura International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable beauty pageant Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable beauty pageant. See assessment of references.

This page was created in both draft space and article space, probably in order to game the system. This prevents draftification, but it doesn't prevent deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question to @Robert McClenon: How is the Manila Bulletin source not independent? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:HueMan1 - Assessment changed; conclusion left unchanged. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The event was covered by Manila Bulletin[3], ABS-CBN Corporation[4], Habertürk[5], I think meets WP:GNG.Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable beauty pageant. It failed to meet the notability guidelines.---Richie Campbell (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. See additional assessment of Conan Daily blog at WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources. Also Robert McClenon is correct, WP is not a suicide pact regarding our ability to delete crud. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ten York[edit]

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

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

Another condo tower in a city with many. Fails WP:NBUILD. Only cursory mention in the media. Website UrbanToronto is commercial site promoting development and it barely mentions this tower. No content, or descriptive information available on its architecture or anything notable. Alaney2k (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I've improved and expanded the article. Passes WP:GNG. The comment that UrbanToronto "barely mentions this tower" simply isn't true, I found plenty of articles, some of which I've cited as sources. Project is interesting for its distinctive triangular shape, triangular swimming pool, height (at 224 metres tall), and its development on a tiny plot. UrbanToronto is perfectly adequate as a source in my opinion. NemesisAT (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment UT is a site covering development. This is not general notability to have it discussed there. Alaney2k (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seemingly enough in-depth coverage available to make it pass WP:GNG: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some routine mentions. Star is real estate section. As for the others. If anything, the transaction with the city seems to be the focus. Alaney2k (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The transaction is certainly part of most of those articles, but a lot is being told about the building itself as well. I am also not sure why being in the real estate section would disqualify the Star article, a very in-depth source; the newspaper has to put it in some section and real estate seems like the most obvious choice. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as it received enough coverage to meet GNGJackattack1597 (talk) 21:52, 20 October 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 Australian High Commissioner to Trinidad and Tobago. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian High Commissioners to Jamaica[edit]

List of Australian High Commissioners to Jamaica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG . 8 of the 11 sources are actually primarily about another ambassador position and completely lacking third party sources. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi all, I am a significant contributor to this Page. As you might expect, I think the Page should not be deleted, and I believe the content is notable, but would perhaps be open to it if the page's content could be hosted elsewhere on Wikipedia. Clare. (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Since most of these high commissioners actually represented Australia to multiple Caribbean countries, maybe there should be a list under a heading of "List of Australian High Commissioners to Caribbean countries" with a list of which countries the commissioner represented Australia in? It doesn't say much for Australia-Jamaica relations that Australia chooses to locate its ambassador not in the most populous Commonwealth country in the Caribbean, but in a different country with less than half Jamaica's population. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Australian High Commissioner to Trinidad and Tobago, as the information is essentially already duplicated there. Meticulo (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with Metropolitan90. I think that making a list page for Caribbean ambassadors makes more sense than just redirecting to a different country. FiddleheadLady (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's not merely "a different country". The High Commissioner in Trinidad and Tobago IS effectively the Australian diplomatic representative for the Caribbean. See this DFAT page which says: "The Australian High Commission is accredited to Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, The Bahamas and Trinidad and Tobago. The High Commission is also responsible for providing consular assistance in Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Dutch Leeward Antilles (Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao), Dutch Leeward Islands (Sint Maarten, Saba, Sint Eustatius), French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Montserrat, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Martin, and Turks and Caicos Islands". Meticulo (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My original statement stands then. There should be one page for the Caribbean ambassador rather than a page for each country- particularly if they are all the same person. There is no reason to associate it to a single country. FiddleheadLady (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Meticulo. Deus et lex (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A redirect to Trinidad and Tobago is inappropriate since these were resident High Commissioners between 1975-1994. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Utterly unconvinced by the "GNG" argument for a List article backed by government press releases and standard press coverage. That said, it is the same position as Australian High Commissioner to Trinidad and Tobago - the residency of the High Commissioner to various countries in the Caribbean has moved but it is a single position. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:31, 21 October 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 Volt Germany. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Loeper[edit]

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

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

Clearly fails WP:NPOL. Chirota (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it meets the general notability guideline criteria, which is also cited as a criterion: "Even people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. --Heideneii (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think redirecting to Volt Germany is a natural WP:ATD. Some more sources could help to demonstrate WP:GNG notability. —Kusma (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few --Heideneii (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Volt Germany, for now. I'm not convinced that he meets WP:GNG since I haven't seen any significant third-party coverage on him. (The FAZ article has something but I don't think it counts towards GNG.) A redirect would be appropriate since people are likely to search for his name on WP because of his co-leadership of Volt. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – inclined to agree with the emerging consensus here, although it is honestly relatively close. NPOL's obviously a miss, but I like this article in de Volkskrant (specifically the word "kiesdrempel", as it were), and getting a long interview in the taz, while probably not the hardest thing in the world, does count toward something. But since much of the rest is (often local) routine announcements, candidate checks or passing mentions in pieces about his party, I'd also say he's not quite there yet. Maybe with another election cycle, but then again, you only get to be the unnerving upstart once... AngryHarpy‍^talk 19:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, very neutral: "the unnerving upstart once" --Heideneii (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heideneii, that's just my infamous penchant for aggressively arbitrary alliterations coming through, though there's definitely a little bit of truth to the observation – after all, remember these guys? Anyway, back to topic... AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have had a look at the sources recently added. The Volkskrant article singled out by AngryHarpy is good, but I don't think that any of the others amount to significant coverage. I'm still not convinced that he's notable independently of his party; I'll be sticking with 'redirect'. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and consider renaming. Most of the delete !voters expressed concerns over tying three events in a year together, but there was a general consensus that the larger topic of Google service outages is a notable one and this article could be moved/renamed. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Google services outages[edit]

2020 Google services outages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article covering three temporary Google outages, only linked by happening in the same calendar year. None of the outages seem to have any greater significance, and the only coverage amounts to newspapers saying "yes it's down for everyone" and "it's up again." Mcrsftdog (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mcrsftdog (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mcrsftdog (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as these got a decent amount of attention in media. I'd support moving to a general title to include outages throughout all years - but I don't think we have articles for any other years (but if there was a 2021 outage, I'd move the article to something like "List of Google service outages" and include it). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clearly demonstrates WP:NOTABILITY. Elli's suggestion for a List of Google services outages article is a good idea, though I'm concerned that it may get a bit WP:TOOLONG given the large number of outages Google has had over the past two decades. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Services like Google and Facebook are now vital for their billions of users and so their outages are quite important. "Don't put all your eggs in one basket"! Andrew🐉(talk) 08:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of these outages have anything to do with one another, they were just temporary unrelated blips in unrelated services, and the coverage is very shallow as nom notes - they happened, that's it. If kept, should be moved/merged into an article like Elli suggests above that is just a chart of all notable Google service outages the media has noticed in any year, and not kept as is which suggests the 2020 outages were related. SnowFire (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTNEWS. Warrant mentioning in the relevant service articles, that's it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no signs of WP:SYNTH in the article. As a global event, it also passes WP:EVENTCRIT. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is synth, because it implies that the three events were recognised collectively as a signficant, which isn't demonstrated in the sources, which report on the events individually. EVENTCRIT also states A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, if people are just going to ignore WP:NOTNEWS then we may as well deprecate it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This information is too minor for a separate article. Place info in main article.→StaniStani 04:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: 3 disconnected events that all happened to be related to Google. The outages are no different than a thunderstorm, and have no lasting effect. If the cause of the outage was significant—such as a hack, or sabotage—that would solidify this as an article. As the 3 outages were minor technical faults, there is no lasting significance here. Readers a decade from now won't care about these events. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 04:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is akin to airplane accidents with no injuries or fatalities, which are not kept. These outages have no lasting impact and fails the WP:10YT. Geschichte (talk) 08:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Move from 2020 Google services outages to Google service outages: The questions facing this article are: 1) Is there any natural reason to join these three events into one article, on the basis of "Google + calendar year"? 2) If not, do any of the outages merit an article on their own? 3) Are these events, together, notable enough for an article? On point (1), I agree that "2020" is arbitrary, but I will argue point (3), that the collection of these events *is* significant and notable as a key piece of historical context of the certainly-notable 2021 Facebook outage.

News coverage of the Facebook outage has frequently made reference to the 2020 Google outage(s). It's presumably why this article is in the spotlight right now, and it's certainly the reason behind the *40-fold* increase in pageviews in the last two days. This suggests some degree of lasting significance as of 1 year later (we'll have to see about 10 years). (I would note that WP:10YT is not a litmus test for WP:NOTABILITY, and likewise, WP:EFFECT is a sufficient-but-not-necessary criterion.)

Were these 2020 Google outages WP:NOTABLE *before* the Facebook outage? It's a moot point, but I think we can all agree that a service disruption *significant enough* notable -- see also List of major power outages. The sheer number of individuals and businesses that rely upon Gmail, YouTube, Google Calendar, etc. means that any outage of these services is inherently *closer to* notability than outages of other websites.

Regardless of these 2020 Google outages' notability as standalone events, they are now notable outside of themselves as part of a larger conversation about dependence on Internet corporations, consolidation, etc. This "larger conversation" includes the US Congress holding hearings and considering legislation. This is the context which makes the details of these Google outages notable: how big or small they were, how brief or extended, avoidable or unavoidable they were.

Therefore, the information in this article is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Where? 2021_Facebook_outage#Background? Not great. YouTube#Service_outages and Gmail#Service_outages and ...? No, it should be in a single place. I think it would be appropriate to simply move this article to Google service outages and add any earlier and later events as relevant and notable. SSSheridan (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. There are sensible alternatives to deletion and so our policy WP:PRESERVE applies. If the structure or title needs work then this is best done by ordinary editing, maintaining the edit history. Deletion would be an outage – a disruptive break in the service. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Google service outages: Per SSSheridan. Article seems good enough to pass WP:GNG, but I believe that it should be expanded to cover notable outages for the past years as well. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Concur unless there is an outage that is as significant as the Facebook outage an article or list of outages would be better. DogsRNice (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Google service outages, an article about 2020 outages specifically doesn't make sense but an article covering all outages should be fine. Jumpytoo Talk 22:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per Elli. The articles passes WP:GNG. The best argument against is WP:SYNTH , however per SSSheridan I believe there is enough notability of outages as a whole (in which these are often mentioned together) to keep and improve Vanteloop (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I also support the suggestion to rename and re-purpose the article to be more generally about Google service outages. Not sure if "List of" should be in the title or not. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep evidently Google service outages is a notable topic. I'm happy for the article to be renamed. Regarding the suggestion to merge, Google is 200,000 bytes long. It doesn't need more information stuffed into it. NemesisAT (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If the inclusion criteria at List of major power outages were a guideline applying to all utilities then this page would easily meet it. SpinningSpark 19:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and repurpose to List of Google outages, or even more generally to List of cloud service outages with inclusion criteria similar to List of major power outages. A book chapter "Risk management in the cloud and cloud outages" has a table of outages on page 1728 covering 2008 to 2013. "Why Does the Cloud Stop Computing?: Lessons from Hundreds of Service Outages" covers 597 unplanned outages from 2009 to 2015. These outages have huge economic significance, for Google as well as its users; this book says "Just a few days earlier, in an unrelated outage, Google's home page briefly went offline, costing the company more than half a million dollars in lost ad revenue in just five minutes". SpinningSpark 19:47, 24 October 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 Center for the History of Women Philosophers and Scientists. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth of Bohemia Prize[edit]

Elisabeth of Bohemia Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG: no significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was created by a user in direct COI to the article's subject. intforce (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to the Center for the History of Women Philosophers and Scientists. This is the organization that awards the Elisabeth of Bohemia Prize.4meter4 (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per 4m4. pburka (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canoncito, San Miguel County, New Mexico[edit]

Canoncito, San Miguel County, New Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Topos don't go back very far, and aerials not much further, but they all show exactly what's there now: a church. Other than a passing reference to it as a settlement, which isn't good enough, I can find nothing of any substance. Mangoe (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment school would need a community to attend.Djflem (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep settlement activity. Before WWII. WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GEOLAND per Lightburst above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it meets geolandJackattack1597 (talk) 21:48, 20 October 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 14:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Ott (fighter)[edit]

John Ott (fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:MMABIO criteria, as he does not have 3 fights in top tier promotions, nor as he been ranked anywhere near the top 10 of his division by Sherdog or FightMatrix. Also fails WP:GNG as his main coverage is through routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 11:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Had only one top tier fight and fightmatrix.com says his all time highest ranking was #178 in his division. Neither is enough to meet WP:NMMA. In addition, all of the coverage is routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) As sufficient sources were found by another user to demonstrate notability, I am withdrawing the nomination. Thanks for finding sources. --Lenny Marks (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bullers Wood School[edit]

Bullers Wood School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I believe that the article fails notability per WP:NSCHOOL. The article cites no sources whatsoever, and I have done a search for mentions and have not found "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject," as required. Lenny Marks (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lenny Marks (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lenny Marks (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG, as does pretty much every other secondary school in the United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see how it meets GNG as it says:

  A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

And WP:ORG says it has to be multiple sources. I tried, and failed, to find that. Did you manage to do so?

Plenty of sources online. Oh, and as the nominator please don't vote twice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, did not mean to vote twice. The problem I had was that the sources I found (with the exception of one) were not "independent" because they were either from the school website or seemed to be reports or material commissioned by the school. Obviously, if you managed to find independent, significant, mentions then it should not be deleted, but I do not see them. Sorry if I'm missing an obvious one. --Lenny Marks (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added 5 articles clipped from newspapers.com to the article's talk page. Under WP:NEXIST,

The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.

See also NORG's alternate criteria and WP:NSCHOOLS, which exempt not-for-profit schools from the requirements of NORG. This article does need revision for neutral encyclopedic language and for addition of reliable sources, but since multiple reliable, independent sources do exist, the school therefore meets GNG. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm jointly closing the AfDs about Clothed female, naked male and Clothed male, naked female. In each case, there is consensus to not keep the article, which leaves us to decide whether the outcome is delete or merge. A minority of contributors would merge the articles into each other, but there is no consensus about what the title of the merged article would be or what it would be about (porn, art history, or both?). As such, deletion is the most consensual outcome. Sandstein 21:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clothed female, naked male[edit]

Clothed female, naked male (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

yes the acronym is a dictionary definition. Just about anything online is a mirror of wikipedia content. Can't see anything in google books or scholar either that discusses the term or idea as such. Some passing mention in a reference but there doesn't seem to be anything on the theme itself. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• Merge with Clothed male, naked female. There is writing about this topic in the context of erotica and art history, though you do have to sift through a lot of pornography to find it. The two articles both cover the broader concept of art or erotica in which some of the participants are clothed and others are not, either for its own sake, or representative of power dynamics that appeal to artistic expression and to BDSM enthusiasts. Some examples, not all RS and not all use the term exactly; I promise none are porn but can't promise they're all safe-for-work: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. The topic might have a more, uh, scholarly name; I looked but didn't see one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Categorization of Pornographic Video Clips on the Internet: A Cognitive Anthropological Approach Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Ivanvector -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clothed male, naked female (2nd nomination), I'm wondering if both CFNM & CMNF might be better off merged into a section in a larger article - possibly erotic humiliation. Alternately, maybe clothed/naked fetishism per a suggestion at the previous AfD? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd think even broader - maybe some sort of broad article on sexual imagery? As older classical portrayals not humilating...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That could work, if there's the sourcing for it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Simply not enough RS to sustain an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge both to a new article on Gender inequality and nudity. BD2412 T 05:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Three fundamental problems. The article's focus cannot be demonstrated as notable in 3rd-party sources. I appreciate the good-faith efforts of Ivanvector and others to look for a proper fire under all the smoke, but I don't see any good sources for this concept. The concept is also not verifiable, as named and defined here. Either of those obvious problems should kill the article. Lastly there's the trickier third problem of where does this idea come from? that editors here and in [previous AfD] have gotten caught up in, instead of addressing #1 and #2. Is porn the context? Is feminism the context? Is European art history the context? The article is no help. Its first sentence claims CFNM is "a genre of nudity based on the real or imagined interaction of one or more nude men and one or more clothed women," which is a definition that says the same thing twice, plus it turns on that nonsense phrase "genre of nudity". Ghits on "genre of nudity" mostly gives back results pointing back to this article. We don't need to guess around about the context. We don't need to go that far. --Lockley (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think there is perhaps a small nugget of sourceable info on this phenomenon (and its reverse) as a kink/porn genre, but it could live as a section in erotic humiliation or similar. The current content of this article, and its sibling, is entirely WP:SYNTH, so I see nothing of value to merge anywhere. (Copied from my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clothed male, naked female (2nd nomination)). Colin M (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:OR. No indications of stand-alone notability and nothing worth merging. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This seems highly contrived and based on sourcing that is too limited to give rise to its own term. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm jointly closing the AfDs about Clothed female, naked male and Clothed male, naked female. In each case, there is consensus to not keep the article, which leaves us to decide whether the outcome is delete or merge. A minority of contributors would merge the articles into each other, but there is no consensus about what the title of the merged article would be or what it would be about (porn, art history, or both?). As such, deletion is the most consensual outcome. Sandstein 21:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clothed male, naked female[edit]

Clothed male, naked female (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

yes the acronym is a dictionary definition. Just about anything online is a mirror of wikipedia content. Can't see anything in google books or scholar either that discusses the term or idea as such. Some passing mention in a reference but there doesn't seem to be anything on the theme itself. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• Merge with Clothed female, naked male. There is writing about this topic in the context of erotica and art history, though you do have to sift through a lot of pornography to find it. The two articles both cover the broader concept of art or erotica in which some of the participants are clothed and others are not, either for its own sake, or representative of power dynamics that appeal to artistic expression and to BDSM enthusiasts. Some examples, not all RS and not all use the term exactly; I promise none are porn but can't promise they're all safe-for-work: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm, what would you imagine the title of the merged page would be? One of the reasons I didn't just BOLD merge these is that I couldn't find a good title for both of the pages combined, which isn't bad and or OR. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the wall I ran into, so I'm wondering if both CFNM & CMNF might be better off merged into a section in a larger article - possibly erotic humiliation. Alternately, maybe clothed/naked fetishism per a suggestion at the previous AfD? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd think even broader - maybe some sort of broad article on sexual imagery? As older classical portrayals not humilating...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That could work, if there's the sourcing for it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Simply not enough RS to sustain an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge both to a new article on Gender inequality and nudity. BD2412 T 05:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Three fundamental problems. The article's focus cannot be demonstrated as notable in 3rd-party sources. I appreciate the good-faith efforts of Ivanvector and others to look for fire under the smoke, but I don't see any good sources for this concept. The concept is also not verifiable, as named and defined here. Either of those obvious problems should kill the article. Lastly there's the trickier third problem of where does this idea come from? that editors have gotten caught up in, instead of addressing #1 and #2. Is porn the context? Is feminism the context? Is European art history the context? The article's first sentence claims CMNF is "a genre of nudity in which one or more women are nude while one or more men are clothed," which is a tautology, plus it turns on a nonsensical concept "genre of nudity". --Lockley (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as failing WP:OR. No indications of meeting notability requirements. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think there is perhaps a small nugget of sourceable info on this phenomenon (and its reverse) as a kink/porn genre, but it could live as a section in erotic humiliation or similar. The current content of this article, and its sibling, Clothed female, naked male, is entirely WP:SYNTH, so I see nothing of value to merge anywhere. Colin M (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This seems highly contrived and based on sourcing that is too limited to give rise to its own term. Also, examples of convergent representation in art across different cultures and periods, however similar, do not automatically represent 'a genre'. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A more appropriate place for this article and its ilk would be something like 'Sexism in art' Iskandar323 (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, because the concept of CMNF/CFNM isn't to do with fine art, it's a sexual fetish. Sexism in art is a whole different topic. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:13, 21 October 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 draft page still exists at Draft:Surrogate (film), work on the article there and then request a new review. It is not helpful to have a mainspace page and a draft page in existence at the same time. Inexperienced users are well advised to go through the Articles for Creation process rather than creating articles directly in mainspace. SpinningSpark 23:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surrogate (film)[edit]

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

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

Surrogate (film)

This is an unreleased film, scheduled for release in November 2021. Nothing in this article indicates that the production of the film satisfies general notability. The three general references do not establish notability, because two are the director's own, and one is IMDB. This article was moved from article space to draft space by a reviewer, but the author then moved a copy into article space, so that it is in both draft space and article space, but does not satisfy film notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has two independent references now. Yes is early but has been made, is coming, and is being discussed in secondary sources Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NFF IMO, specifically "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Fails GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is also a suspicion of mine that two main contributing editors (Dream1924 and Dreamoutloud19) could be one with WP:SPA. Kolma8 (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is evidence of reader excitement in anticipation of the movie. Readers expect the article to exist, and want to add it it. This is the wiki way. This is how Wikipedia attracts new editors. Blocking the enthusiastic newcomers and SALTing missing article titles in not how to attract and retain new editors.

    I think the two blocked accounts look like friends, or the one person using different accounts on different computers because they forgot their password. In any case, obvious newcomers. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I am quite confused with what's going on. The 'Surrogate film' as per the articles is about to be completed and released. It has already had advanced publicity and articles written about it when it won screenplay competitions and when it completed production.

Wikipedia is very confusing for a beginner and the 1st time I created the article it wouldn't even allow me to access 'review draft' or 'more/move'option after writing the content. A few days later I tried again by setting up a second user to be able to ' and now am not sure which one of the drafts you are referring to. If you tell me which user version you are debating article on Dreamoutloud19 or Dream1924 I can delete the other account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.193.141.109 (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I sure hope that you did not interpreter my comment as directed personally at you, assuming you are Dream1924 and/or Dreamoutloud19. The comment is in regards of whether or not the article you have created meets criteria to be on Wikipedia. Please continue contribute to Wikipedia but do so IAW WP guidance and philosophy. A good point to start is reading WP:FIRST and WP:NOT, for the films/movies articles please read WP:NFILM. Good luck Kolma8 (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now. The coverage for this is pretty light, too light for it to pass NFF at this point in time. Sending it to AfC/draftspace so it can be incubated for a little while and then resubmitted once more coverage comes available is always a possibility. However at this point in time there's just not really enough. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi what do you mean the coverage is pretty light at this stage? What does the page require for a a film that is about to be released to be on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dream1924 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -

This draft or article is about an unreleased film. The film notability guideline identifies three stages in the production cycle for films:

• 1. Planned films that have not begun production (principal photography or animation). These planned films do not satisfy film notability.
• 2. Films that are confirmed by reliable sources to have begun production, but have not been released. These films are only notable if production itself satisfies general notability in terms of significant coverage. Mere mention of the start of production does not satisfy notability.
• 3. Films that have been released, whose notability is determined primarily by reception and reviews.

This film page must be evaluated based on general notability of production. Category:AfC comment templates An analysis of the sources shows that only sources 7 and 8 are about the film. Only source 8 is about production of the film. Source 7 is a passing mention, and is not about production of the film. Source 8 is about production, but it based on an interview. The sources do not establish that production has met general notability, probably because it has not done so.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NFF. Platonk (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:NFF. Principle photography has commenced. And has finished, it is in post-production, and release is imminent. It might even be released before the conclusion of this AfD. Between now and release, there will continue to be new sources, and new readers wanting Wikipedia’s quality coverage, and budding new editors who will keep trying to make the missing article if it is not there. NFF does not require the GNG, but is permission to exist in anticipation of quality sources that are coming. If they don’t come, then delete about a week after release, when NFF no longer applies. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: You misunderstand WP:NFF.

• First criteria, the film has to have some sort of notability, WP:GNG. ✗ Fail
• Second criteria, NFF requires at minimum that filming/production has begun. ✓ Pass
• Third criteria, the filing/production has to be notable. ✗ Fail

So this article should be moved to draft space until such time as the film has been released and is notable. Platonk (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understood NFF very well many years ago. What you are describing is absurdity. First and third criteria as you describe serve to nullify the essence of NFF.

if the GNG is meet, there is no need for NFF. The point of NFF is for when the GNG is not (clearly) met.

Also note, the GNG is a guideline, and it can’t cover everything. It doesn’t cover future films, NFF is for that.

The base policy is WP:PSTS. It limits content. If there are no secondary sources there can be no content. There is, however, WP:STUB.

The first and third criteria as written need severe weakening. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:SmokeyJoe - I have reviewed the history of NFF. It has not changed substantively since 2008. Either you are referring to a version of NFF that was superseded in 2008, or there have been two competing interpretations of NFF for thirteen years. In any case, if you think that the criteria need 'severe weakening', that would be a good comment to make at the film notability talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is absurd is you thinking that GNG is the finish line, not the starting gate, and yet this article hasn't even made it to the race. Per WP:GNG, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, ... If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article." This article doesn't come close to meeting the criteria for a standalone article. And whatever NFF policy might have said 'years ago' must not be what it says today. If you disagree with a guideline or policy, then bring it up on the appropriate noticeboard or talk page; this AfD ain't it. Platonk (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is it. AfD is where decisions are made. The notability guidelines are predictors of what AfD will decided. Without care, this becomes circular.

These films should be kept because they will be notable very soon, and for Wikipedia to be a timely resource, it needs an article for references to be added to as they arise. In the meantime, it meets WP:STUB. The current articles has a lot less poor quality sources than I saw in draft, but it can be pared down further. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I edited the article to fix citation and external link violations, and did some formatting and corrections. (Sorry, Robert McClenon, that messes with the counters on your table above.) Platonk (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to User:Platonk - It appears that you removed six of the references. I don't think that removing the references in an article that has been nominated for deletion is a good idea. I know that you and I think that they do not provide significant coverage, but other editors may disagree. I have inserted the changed numbers in the table, but I dislike the idea of removing references. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: The reasons were in the the edit summaries. The first three were actually external links to actress websites masquerading as citations; they verified no content whatsoever. The next three were off the wall articles completely irrelevant to the topic of the wiki article, and didn't support any of the article content at all. I would defend those particular edits whether the article was being considered at AfD or not. I'm not sure whether you are objecting to the edits, or the timing of them. I've never seen an AfD where someone complained about editing an article during AfD (unless it was a bad or wrong edit). If that were the policy, then a caution against editing would be part of the AfD banner on the article page, but instead the banner includes "Feel free to improve the article", so I did. Sometimes you have to make such edits to see what is left to work with. And sometimes the other AfD participants need to see what we're left to work with. The emperor has no clothes. Platonk (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Should the article be called The Surrogate (2021 film)? StrayBolt (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes.

  • Surrogates (film), a 2009 film based on the comic book series
  • The Surrogate (1984 film), a Canadian erotic film starring Art Hindle
  • The Surrogate (1995 film), a TV movie starring Alyssa Milano
  • The Surrogate (2020 film), an American LGBT-related Independent drama film
  • The Surrogate, original title of The Sessions, a 2012 film starring John Hawkes, Helen Hunt, and William H. Macy

  SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Empire (disambiguation)[edit]

Roman Empire (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The primary topic and Roman Empire (TV series) are the only legitimate entries, so WP:TWODABS applies. (How in the world are republics considered empires?) Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I shaved off some of the miscellaneous additions that merely had an association with the city of Rome, rather than the Roman Empire. The additions of links to the Roman Republic and Kingdom can be useful to the common reader, who may not know the distinction between the three Roman states. Otherwise, it works fine as a disambig page since it ties together multiple similarly name articles. Curbon7 (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Curbon7; the "See also" section is also unusually helpful. In its current form, the whole thing is a useful contents-page for ancient Rome topics plus a few extras. Elemimele (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The page looks absolutely fine to me. Some of the lower entries stretch the point a bit and might be trimmed off, but that’s not an argument for deleting the whole thing. There’s no question that the term is regularly used to cover the upper entries. Mccapra (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This seems like a perfectly valid navigational page to me. The (strictly speaking, incorrect) use of the term "Roman Empire" to refer to other periods in the history of Rome is not uncommon, so it doesn't seem unlikely at all that somebody searching for the term "Roman Empire" would actually be looking for e.g. Ancient Rome in general or even the Roman Republic specifically (how common a misconception is it that Julius Caesar was an emperor of Rome? My feeling is that it is a very common misconception). With regards to the nominator's comment about republics being considered empires: that's not all that uncommon, because there's more than one sense of the word "empire". There is of course the sense which relates to the form of government, i.e. a state with an emperor or empress, which obviously precludes republics. But there is also the geopolitical (or foreign policy) sense of the term empire, which doesn't. The French Third Republic had a colonial empire – the (second) French colonial empire. The United States is a republic, but the phrase "American empire" is in common use by academics and laypeople alike. Even the article Roman Empire says about Rome that it was an "empire" (i.e. a great power) long before it had an emperor in the first paragraph following the WP:LEAD. Whether people should be using "empire" in the geopolitical sense is a question that can be debated, but there's no denying that they do. TompaDompa (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Does anybody know what dab pages are for? It's not a haven for "similarly name[d] articles", a "contents-page for ancient Rome topics" or to cater to the ignorant. Seriously, has anybody ever mistaken the Ottoman Empire for the Roman? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There were lots of things that called themselves or have been called the Roman Empire Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep complex meanings - Byzantine empire also called themselves this so yeah, good page to keep Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep: I might quibble about the notion that the "Roman Empire" proper ended in AD 330 rather than 395 or 476—but that's a detail. Clearly the term can apply to Republican Rome following the Punic Wars, since Rome did in fact rule an empire; and from various points in the late third to the fifth century there could be said to be two Roman Empires (or one) depending on your point of view; the Eastern Roman Empire continued to flourish until 1453 (even though we more often refer to it as the "Byzantine Empire" after 476); the "Holy Roman Empire" was an entirely separate entity from the time of Charlemagne onwards, but could be confused with its "spiritual predecessors"; and there are other uses readers might encounter. So this page serves a necessary and useful purpose. P Aculeius (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think Clarityfiend has raised a fair question here but a page like this would help the readers and should not be taken too literally in terms of content or purpose. The page needs to be modified and enhanced to improve the user experience, not deleted. The Roman Empire began long before Augustus and, as P Aculeius says above, it strictly speaking ended in the 4th century, not the 5th. As for republican empires, I think it is fair to say that the USSR was an empire. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarityfiend has indeed raised an important point: whether we're here to cater for the ignorant. I'd say that as an Encylopaedia, yes we are: our readers include school-kids with very basic knowledge, crossword-solvers, random people who've watched a costume-drama and want to know a bit more, etc., and we should help all of them find good information even if their initial knowledge is wobbly, misguided and ambiguous. As a disambiguation page, this page may help to clear up their misunderstandings and point them to the information they're looking for, even if they don't know the correct search-term. Elemimele (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The content of disambiguation pages should, as a matter of encyclopedic utility, be as broad as possible. I have read the guidelines on disambiguation pages, and I think that they are less than clear because they are written in an open-ended fashion. The current disambiguation page contains information that may be useful, as User: Elemimele says, to the ignorant. Any narrow interpretation of the disambiguation guidelines is either a mistakenly narrow interpretation, or an indication that the guidelines should be broadened. The nominator's objection seems to be the breadth. If there are specific issues, discuss them at Talk:Roman Empire (disambiguation). If there are guideline issues, discuss them at a policy page, bearing in mind that the guidelines should be broad. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 13 October 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 07:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baby On The Move[edit]

Baby On The Move (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This company does not seem to be notable. All references seem to be in passing at best. | MK17b | (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. | MK17b | (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. | MK17b | (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I concur this does not seem to meet WP:NCOMPANY and reads more like a catalogue/advert entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could find nothing more than what is on the page already and one in depth ref from the ODT does not make notability. Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I know this company and have bought quite a number of products from them. But they definitely aren't notable. Ajf773 (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability. 210.178.110.229 (talk) 04:35, 18 October 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 03:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Razum International School[edit]

Razum International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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