< October 13 October 15 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 03:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Humble[edit]

Jason Humble (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. Promotional in tone. Sources provided are all either primary or paid content (Times of Israel notes this at the bottom of that article), or don't cover the subject in necessary detail. WP:BEFORE doesn't turn up much that I can find apart from more primary stuff or paid content. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 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 keep. Participants believe these should be nominated separately if needed, signifying no prejudice against speedy renomination of individual articles. ✗plicit 03:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balaklava Football Club[edit]

Balaklava Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamley Bridge Football Club, these clubs represent local villages with populations of around 500-2,000 that play against each other. Given that around 12% of Australians are males between 15-35 years old, that means that these villages have around 200 prime-aged males to select for their teams, and these clubs are nowhere near notable in terms of sporting merit. The only refs are village newspapers or the books by Peter Lines on rural local football teams, which are self-published books Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 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. ✗plicit 23:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheru photography[edit]

Sheru photography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional BLP of an early career photographer and filmmaker with no indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are nothing more than self published galleries... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:18, 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 redirect to The Walt Disney Company#Divisions. SpinningSpark 20:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disney General Entertainment Content[edit]

Disney General Entertainment Content (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'm on the fence with this one. On one hand, it could be refactored as just a list article as many of the items under the "units" section have their own articles and can easily be deemed as notable, but I am not finding many sources for the entity itself, "Disney General Entertainment Content". I am listing this here as it has been repeatedly un-redirected and there appears to be at least a small consensus forming already that this does not have suitable in-depth coverage to pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG. ASUKITE 23:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 23:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 23:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 23:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 23:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:12, 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. ✗plicit 23:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Calfopoulos[edit]

Marie Calfopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Survived PROD in 2015. She's a working photographer with some small gallery shows, but there's no sourcing found via BEFORE to indicate independent, in depth coverage. More of what's already included in terms of listings and passing mentions. Star Mississippi 19:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:17, 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 23:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Alhatti[edit]

Ahmed Alhatti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no substantive RS coverage of the subject. Most of the coverage of the subject is actually coverage of Cayan Tower. In this coverage, Ahmed Alhatti gives interview quotes because he is the head of the company that built the tower. In other words, the coverage is not about Ahmed Alhatti. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:13, 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 keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of water parks in the Americas[edit]

List of water parks in the Americas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles aren’t categories. Just an indiscriminate list of water parks, most of which aren’t even notable. Dronebogus (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 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 23:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uniphos[edit]

Uniphos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not able to find any reliable sources that have news apart from stocks or shares. Fails WP:NCORP. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:35, 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. Although many people wanted this kept on the grounds that this is a national competition, there is no basis for that rationale in policy. In fact, NSPORT has very little to say on competitions at all, even though it claims to be the relevant guideline for that. Two merge suggestions were made. Football in Gibraltar currently has nothing on women's football. If someone wants to undertake a merge, I will undelete on request and redirect to the chosen target. SpinningSpark 21:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Rock Cup[edit]

Women's Rock Cup (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 with WP:GNG.  ||  Orbit Wharf  💬 18:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:11, 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) 20:12, 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. ✗plicit 23:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St.Mary Immaculate Heart of Church, Sathankulam[edit]

St.Mary Immaculate Heart of Church, Sathankulam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the article claims it's a pilgrimage destination, I find nothing on this church about pilgrimages or anything else other than in basic listings. I looked under such names as Immaculate Heart of St Mary Church and Immaculate Heart of Mary Church, restricting my searches to Tamil or Sathankulam. I also searched for "புனித மரியாவின் மாசற்ற திரு இருதய ஆலயம்" (from the infobox, which Google Translate confirms is the equivalent in Tamil), and found one match (not counting another Wikipedia page where it's found): this. So I'm not finding any evidence that this church is notable. I'd already draftified it, whereupon the author almost immediately recreated it in article space, so draftifying it is not, for this discussion, an available alternative. Largoplazo (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 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 Jenn Johnson#Discography. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Longer[edit]

A Little Longer (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:NSONG. Entirely sourced to either the artists' social media and websites, or online stores, and I can't find anything better. Normal procedure for a non-notable song would be to redirect it to the parent album, but in this case, the song appears on three live albums rather than a studio work, and so it doesn't "belong" to any album in particular. Not sure if WP:XY applies here and it should be deleted, or if redirecting to the earliest of those albums is the best option... bringing it to AfD to get a consensus about what to do with this song article. Richard3120 (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SBKSPP: great suggestion, thank you – it could definitely be redirected to Jenn Johnson#Other appearances, to be more specific, and I'd be happy with that. Richard3120 (talk) 13:16, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chandi Prasad Bhatt (Politician)[edit]

Chandi Prasad Bhatt (Politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of party official that does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:54, 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 Ash (band). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hamilton (bassist)[edit]

Mark Hamilton (bassist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient evidence that Hamilton is sufficiently notable (apart from his band Ash to merit a stand alone article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
His youngest-ever appearance at the festival is possibly notable, but it was still as a member of Ash. I have added that fact to the band's article, so there is no need for an official merge process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I initially floated the idea to delete, but redirect has emerged as the best option and I'm cool with that. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 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. SpinningSpark 21:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international prime ministerial trips made by Imran Khan[edit]

List of international prime ministerial trips made by Imran Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long list of items that are not in themselves notable. Alternately, redirect to Imran Khan PepperBeast (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. The international trips made by heads of state always receive significant independent coverage in media of both the nation being visited and the home nation of the head of state (sometimes in international press as well). Clearly a proper WP:BEFORE was not done, because there is a snowball's chance in hell of this failing WP:SIGCOV. Use WP:COMMONSENSE. Further, the influence on diplomatic relations by a head of state makes these international visits automatically notable for their impact on international affairs. The application of WP:INDISCRIMINATE in these type of articles is frankly a poorly realized argument. 4meter4 (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are minimizing the position of a head of government in that analysis beyond was is reasonable/sensible, and under valuing how the actions of a head of state visit impact government relations, politics, economics, legislation, war, etc. Sports teams are entertainment and don't mean much outside of their own little corner of entertainment. Heads of state visits build relationships between governments which influence a wide spectrum of issues such as foreign policy making, trade deals, political allies in international conflict, etc. Heads of state visits aren't vacations, they have agendas with real world consequences that are non-trivial.4meter4 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I ignore the repeated WP:ITSIMPORTANT, how does that justify having a list of them? Lots of things can be (occasionally) individually significant without requiring that we compile an original and unverified list of them. And Khan isn't even head of state, he's head of government. Get your facts right. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The same applies for heads of government; arguing semantics is not helpful. This brings me back to WP:BEFORE. Has that actually been done? It's all well and good to cry that this is an unsourced list, but we do have a supplemental guideline of competent searching before a deletion nomination, and frankly I don't think its likely that this topic would be difficult to locate RS for. Nor do I think that this is an odd cross categorization that would fail WP:NLIST.4meter4 (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that is the case, instead of accusing me of being incompetent, it would be far easier and much more convincing for you to find a reliable source which discusses this topic and provides an accurate listing so that the information can be verifiable. LISTN is the same standard as GNG, but applied to lists: ie, there must be multiple independent reliable sources which significantly cover the list topic and not just individual elements of it. That would also be trivially met if you could find such sources. You haven't, ergo, I'm not convinced RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not accusing you of incompetency. I'm accusing PepperBeast of not doing a WP:BEFORE. However, I would like to know if you even bothered to search for sources at all (because you are usually competent, so my guess is that you didn't put in time and effort to seriously look for evidence). If you are going to make a claim that lack of sources is an issue, you have the responsibility to verify that sources don't exist and actually look for them before making that argument. 4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the misunderstanding (although, whether directed at the nom or anybody, such comments ought to be avoided), then. The rest of my argument still stands. As I kind of implied, coverage of routine individual trips is easy to come by, but I haven't found the kind of coverage needed for LISTN, nor have I found a full listing of these trips other than on WP mirrors. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I get that. However, individual entries in a list don't have to pass GNG. The topic as a whole does, which is supported by the repeated coverage of the subject's trips within media. So I am not really seeing how you can claim there is SIGCOV issue with the topic of the list because of the WP:SUSTAINED coverage of trips being covered in the press (meaning that as a set they are notable to be covered in a list but not necessarily have an individual article on every trip). This is one of the benefits of list articles.4meter4 (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further contributions should be made with reference to policy/guidelines as against simple assertions of notability (or lack).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:42, 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. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Armenian Research[edit]

Institute for Armenian Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Center for Eurasian Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Institute for Armenian Research is a non-notable organization, and fails WP:NORG. Only covered by Turkish news as a mention when covering one of its leaders, as a brief mention. Besides, this is just your friendly, neighbourhood anti-Armenian and genocide-denying organization, whose activities include "the Armenian question" [7], and which has published some wonderful books including The Armenian Issue and the Jews [8] or The Armenian Files: The Myth of Innocence Exposed [9].

The Institute for Armenian Research has recently been rebranded as the Center for Eurasian Studies. Again, here we could just delete the article per WP:GNG and WP:NORG, but you know maybe it would be interesting to just check what they have been... oh shit. JBchrch talk 15:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 15:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 15:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 15:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: To which article do you suggest we merge Institute for Armenian Research? JBchrch talk 20:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I would support that option. (t · c) buidhe 22:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JBchrch: First I would like to thank you for everyone's input. First to @JBchrch concern regarding references for the Center for Eurasian Studies article. One English language newspaper, one source from Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, one source from Istituto Affari Internazionali, Washington Institute For Near East Policy, and one academic journal article from jstor (World Review of Political Economy) was added. In total there are 18 references which should be enough for an article for this length. If you believe there should be more references more can be added.
  • Second, I have never been affiliated with Institute for Armenian Research from their archive page I have not found anti-Armenian language. Having a different view regarding events of 1915 is different from being anti-Armenian. Since this is not a political forum I will not delve into details.
  • Third regarding @JBchrch statement that Institute for Armenian Research has been rebranded as Center for Eurasian Studies. It has not. If you do check the history of Center for Eurasian Studies It is the combination of three groups. One came from Institute for Armenian Research, the second one came from Research Institute for Crimes against Humanity and third group of independent researchers. That is the reason for name change and focus change. You are right it does publish 2 of the journals ( refereed, academic, and indexed journals) from Institute for Armenian Research. It also publishes on a journal from now closed Research Institute for Crimes against Humanity. It also publishes its own journal. We should keep in mind think thanks can change even Rand corporation was not originally known as Rand Corporation and had a name change.
  • Fourth (@Buidhe thank you also for your suggestions) Center for Eurasian Studies and Center for Eurasian Strategic Studies (this organization still exits) to Institute for Armenian Research should not be combined into a single page. There are three different organizations with different aims different philosophies. This will give the reader a misleading impression.
  • Instead what propose is removing "consider the deletion notice on both pages" and put " draft status" on both (if I remember correctly Wikipedia has that option) so that both pages can be improved. Thank you again.Tetulun talk10:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Tetulun, wrt "You are right it does publish 2 of the journals ( refereed, academic, and indexed journals)", could you indicate which journals, either here or on the relevant articles? John Vandenberg (chat) 04:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John Vandenberg: Thank you for your question and suggestion. Center for Eurasian Studies publishes four journals. International Crimes and History (bilingual) (taken over from Research Institute for Crimes against Humanity), Review of Armenian Studies (English) (taken over from Institute for Armenian Research) and Ermeni Araştırmaları (Turkish) (taken over from Institute for Armenian Research) are peer-reviewed and indexed journals. Eurasian World is a semi-academic (bilingual) journal (launched by Center for Eurasian Studies). I added this information with references to the Center for Eurasian Studies article. Due to time constraints, I wrote a short paragraph and added four citations. If required I could however add additional citations. Institute for Armenian Research already has publications sections I did not change it. Tetulun talk19:52, 05 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John Vandenberg: Again thanks for everybodies contribution. Then would it be possible to remove the deletion notice from both articles or at least should they be changed to "improve notice" or "draft notice". Tetulun talk23:48, 08 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:38, 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 keep. Editors arguing ANYBIO should seriously consider showing the "decent amount of coverage" they found; as "meeting one or more [of the ANYBIO criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included.", but in any case, the consensus of this discussion is that this should be kept. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Hellring[edit]

Bernard Hellring (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. Not independently notable. Loksmythe (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources provided qualify as "significant coverage" (WP:SIGCOV) about the subject. Loksmythe (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For the purposes of making it more clear w.r.t. discerning consensus, would those who are arguing about WP:GNG please provide more in-depth analyses of the sources that they are referencing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:14, 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 merge to Mass media in North Korea. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photojournalism in North Korea[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Photojournalism in North Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one source, google search came up dry. Has been whittled down signifigantly since last nom. NW1223(Howl at me|My hunts) 00:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different potential merge targets are suggested at this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:57, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Azevedo[edit]

Alex Azevedo (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 GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, his professional play consisting of 49 minutes in the league and 20 minutes in the cup. At least 100 and I would believe closer to 150 deletion discussions have shown this to be the consensus. Geschichte (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He doesn't meet A7, as there is a claim to notability, as he has played in a fully professional league. Speedy deletion is for the very rare cases when there is absolutely no chance someone is notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If he's passed GNG in your opinion, can you please provide the sources which led you to this conclusion? It would behoove the conversation if you have evidence the rest of us may have missed that could alter this conversation. GauchoDude (talk) 14:02, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vasco Rodrigues[edit]

Vasco Rodrigues (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 GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, his professional play consisting of 34 minutes. Many deletion discussions have shown this to be the consensus. At least 100 and I would believe closer to 150 deletion discussions have shown this to be the consensus. Geschichte (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 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) 19:58, 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. North America1000 11:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kriski[edit]

Mark Kriski (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 television meteorologist, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for meteorologists. The stated notability claim here, various awards for his work, is not referenced at all, while instead the few actual references in the article are supporting personal life trivia like the name and career of his ex-wife, his subsequent engagement and remarriage to his second wife, and a short-term health leave that he took ten years ago -- but even that is referenced to sources like his own employer or unreliable sources (blogs, industry trade newsletters) that aren't support for notability at all.
And on a search for better sources, I found absolutely nothing in ProQuest to support notability in his 1980s Canadian career before joining KTLA, and on a Google search I get (a) sources published by KTLA, (b) glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him, and (c) one article in an independent source about his sick leave, which still isn't enough coverage to get him over the bar all by itself.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived American media coverage than I've got can salvage it with older sourcing that may not have Googled well, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have significantly more and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: You're correct, Kriski is well known (I watch the morning news every day) here in southern Calif.
"Well-known in one local market" is not the inclusion criteria for television personalities — everybody on any local newscast is always "well-known" in their own local market by definition, but we don't want a bad and poorly sourced article about every local television journalist on the planet. The inclusion test requires evidence of nationalized significance, not just Angelenos saying they know him from watching LA's local news. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to a local market. He's been in major TV shows (like a recurring role as a weatherman/reporter on Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and films with a wide international audience. But again, I'm not claiming that makes him notable, just makes me hesitant to argue for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bit parts in films and television shows don't help to establish notability if they haven't made him the subject of reliable source coverage to support an article with. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:38, 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. ✗plicit 03:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Dickinson[edit]

Joel Dickinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Remixers for other artists are not considered notable per NMUSIC when those songs chart. Especially true for this person who wrote his own promotional autobiography on wikipedia that now closely follows the structure of the bio on his own website: [10]. The lack of reliable sources available online is appalling, the best source in the article is a q&a with a blogger. Mottezen (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:34, 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. North America1000 11:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moidu Vanimel[edit]

Moidu Vanimel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Journalist and Photographer. No major coverage of the subject. Venkat TL (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:29, 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. ✗plicit 03:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bom Hyon Sunim[edit]

Bom Hyon Sunim (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 that she meets WP:BIO. Most sources are not independent ones, and the others are either passing mentions or interviews with her (and others) but not about her (like [11]). No better sources were found when looking online either. Fram (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melcous, I did the changes you suggested, and removed the tag. Fram has reinstated it. What is the next step? DrMushEa (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:29, 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 Withdrawn. No such user (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Lewis (musician)[edit]

John Lewis (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

About everything we know about John Lewis is already in the article, scraped from the three sources. The sources mostly mention him in passing; most can be found in "The Mark of the Rani" about his early involvement in writing the music for the Doctor Who episode, not completed due to his health (btw, the alleged death in 1982 does not fit well with the episode release in 1985, but the source might got the dates wrong). He's not mentioned in Pop Muzik article, although he might be credited on the cover. Sadly, that fails even WP:BASIC. I could not find anything more about the subject, and his common name-surname combination and the fact that he died 40 years ago did not help. No such user (talk) 10:21, 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. Users ‎Eastmain and Rrsm13 improved the article after its nomination by adding references to the article. The majority of commenters at this discussion have argued that these sources demonstrate the subject meets our notability criteria (i.e. GNG) but without a source analysis backing up that claim. Star Mississippi and Mikehawk10 questioned that the sources were significant enough to meet GNG or NCORP, but they also provided no source analysis to rebut the keep arguments made by the majority of commenters. The questions surrounding the quality of sources in relation to GNG and/or NCORP remain unanswered by both keep and delete voters. With the lack of a strong policy based argument with supporting analysis on both sides, the result is no consensus. Given that this discussion has been re-listed multiple times already, a further re-listing is not warranted. No prejudice against a re-nomination if the nominator is willing to do a source analysis as outlined at WP:SIRS. Any further issues with the title can be sorted out on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ángel Óscar Ulloa Gregori Museum Room[edit]

Dr. Ángel Óscar Ulloa Gregori Museum Room (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Dr. Ángel Óscar Ulloa Gregori Museum Room : (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sala Museo Dr. Ángel Óscar Ulloa Gregori : (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable ; i would ordinarily say merge, but this would be a merge to the faculty of medicine which does ot I think yet have an article, and a merge to the main university would be disproportionate coverage DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, can a proper translation be "Dr. Ángel Oscar Ulloa Gregori Museum" or similar? If not, could some translation using "Hall", like "Dr. Ángel Oscar Ulloa Gregori Hall of Medical Artifacts" or "Hall of Medical History" or whatever, be used?--Doncram (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only circumstance in which "Room" should be used in the name is if being a one-room museum is specifically a significant feature that is a core characteristic of the place, to be promoted and celebrated. Like they would never put in a partition wall and they would never move it to a larger multi-room space. Like how historic one-room schoolhouses in rural areas of the United States are notable for being operated by just one teacher. Google searching on "one-room museum -school -schoolhouse" yields a couple hits: this one about a tiny modern art museum being transported from Guatemala to Los Angeles, and this one in Wellington New Zealand for fans of Lord of the Rings. There certainly are many museums that are in fact in just one room, like I am aware of some Masonic local history museums that occupy an empty, one-room upper floor in a small building, but the fact that they have a single room is not something they are proud of, not something promoted or acknowledged. --Doncram (talk) 19:05, 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 09:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Padvish Antivirus[edit]

Padvish Antivirus (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 Wikipedia:Notability (software) 3000MAX (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 3000MAX (talk) 09:14, 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 redirect to Hohhot#Education. The opinion by Liusine must be disregarded because it starts off with a personal attack ("The editor, Kudpung (from England), is biased towards Inner Mongolia and China ..."). Everybody else, with one exception, agrees that this does not merit an article. Sandstein 20:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hohhot No.2 Middle School[edit]

Hohhot No.2 Middle 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)

Run of the mill middle school/junior secondary school. Redirect turned back into a non notable article. Middle schools are not automatically notable. No specific claims to notability. No reliable independent sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The editor, Kudpung (from England), is biased towards Inner Mongolia and China by marking this page for deletion. Hohhot No.2 high school is the most notable one in Inner Mongolia. If the editor’s argument were true, that will automatically qualify the deletion of hundreds of England high schools from Wikipedia. Kudpung is also biased in his communication with me. If he can dominate Wikipedia in a way already shown like this, I will advise my American and Chinese colleagues not to trust a word on Wikipedia, especially those edited by him. For example, he edited a page Hanley Castle High School, which is not a selective school. But Hohhot No.2 high school is more famous and more selective in Inner Mongolia. In Kudpung's view, any England middle school is superior than the notable high schools elsewhere in the world? Does English speaking people have the right to understand the world?

I have added references about "key school of Inner Mongolia and news reports in China". If you can Goolge translate Chinese, please go ahead and verify the sources! Liusine (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Nomination of Hohhot No.2 Middle School for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hohhot No.2 Middle School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hohhot No.2 Middle School until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: this is a PUBLIC SCHOOL, meaning it's affiliated to the local government. So the webpage on the Inner Mongolia government's website is the official recognition of the "key school" (notable) status. Liusine (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the first reference "12 key middle schools in Inner Mongolia became the excellent student base of Nankai University". The graduates directly go to Universities (e.g. a very notable univerity Nankai University). So this is a "high school". Please translate carefully before making inadequate judgements like the one above. Liusine (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ 2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:D5B7:AB98:CEF7:8F13 Agreed. It should be HOHHOT NO. 2 HIGH SCHOOL (the US naming convention). Initially it was written as "high school" on Wiki. But someone changed it... In China, 高级中学=senior middle school or high school; 初级中学=junior middle school. Liusine (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpytoo Talk 18:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Striked out the ranking part, see my comment later on. Jumpytoo Talk 19:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jumpytoo Thanks a lot for providing these secondary sources from academic research! They are reliable and independent.

Good to learn that you user:Kudpung are not a 'professor in England'. That makes you less authoritative :) Based on your judgements and comments, you sound like a senior gentlemen in UK, proud to include a UK top 100 school Hanley Castle High School while trying to delete a top 1 high school in Inner Mongolia, China. Do you have problems with Mongolians/Chinese or cannot admit to be simply xenophobic?? I am ASKING ANOTHER EDITOR TO HANDLE THIS DELETION PAGE AS Kudpung is BIASED AND IMPOLITE. Liusine (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ 2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:D5B7:AB98:CEF7:8F13 Hi, You clearly ignored the fact the Hohhot No.2 is a High School. Did you translate the main content of those references? Peer reviewed academic journal articles are reliable 2ndary sources. Liusine (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ Kudpung , Hi, please stop posting on my personal pages. Please come over here and clarify your logic in the rebuttal. Plz stop using the power as an editor or show any judgments/biases. For example, you edited Hanley Castle High School which is a non-selective UK school. Sources claim that it is a top 100 UK school, while the sources I listed prove that Hohhot No.2 High School is top 100 high school in China. Since China has 20 times the population of UK, the Hanley Castle High School is about top 2000 high schools in China. Does that still sound notable to you? Do NOT challenge Chinese K12 education qualities.

Besides, the listed 2nary sources show that Hohhot No.2 Middle School has both junior and senior middle schools, and senior middle school=high school in China (the graduates directly go to colleges). Again, Kudpung intentionally ignored multiple evidences and do not even bother to translate the abstract/texts of the references... Liusine (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HI @ 2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:D5B7:AB98:CEF7:8F13, your IP v6 address shows you are from London, England, similar to Kudpung's. I'm only pointing out this fact. Whatever your excuses for not looking further beyond the title is, the abstract (摘要) is directly below the title and is free. You need to Google translate that. Do not complain for foreign languages because if the source is in French, do you need to translate that? Books are not free either. Do they count as reliable sources? Liusine (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adamant1, did you check this news report? Liusine (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Liusine. Yes I did. Unfortunately there isn't really anything in the notability guidelines stating that highly ranked organizations are notable because of it. So the fact that it's ranked number two on that list, whatever makes them an expert, doesn't really matter. Slightly off topic, but I think that's for the best. Since anyone can create a ranking system of the top schools and use whatever criteria they want for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jumpytoo Talk 19:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the new references. Unfortunately I couldn't get them to load. Anyway, unless I'm wrong all of the references you have provided come from a single website/source. So they would only count as one reference. Which means we have a single good reference (in the ones that are combined) and one that is OK, but doesn't seem to be great. So we still aren't there yet IMO. Although I commend you for the effort though. I'm sure more can found, but preferably it should be from somewhere else then the other references and not a research paper. Unless it is actually published in a peer reviewed journal. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@Jumpytoo Appreciate the new links. The CNKI abstract only show up on a cell phone browser (e.g. Safari on iPhone). For the CNKI articles, I download the CNKI手机知网 App from US Apple store, and log in as a guest (游客登录) to download the full text. It is free. I also share a Dropbox link for two journal articles PDF above (呼和浩特市第二中学简介; 呼和浩特市第二中学创建绿色学校工作纪实) [15] . One can use Google translate for images. Liusine (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpytoo Thanks for the new references. Unfortunately I couldn't get them to load. Anyway, unless I'm wrong all of the references you have provided come from a single website/source. So they would only count as one reference. Which means we have a single good reference (in the ones that are combined) and one that is OK, but doesn't seem to be great. So we still aren't there yet IMO. Although I commend you for the effort though. I'm sure more can found, but preferably it should be from somewhere else then the other references and not a research paper. Unless it is actually published in a peer reviewed journal. As conference papers and dissertations have questionable reliability. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1 The new sources found by Jumpytoo are from different printed newspapers/journals. CNKI or CQVIP are online journal databases. If you check my Dropbox link for three articles PDF above (呼和浩特市第二中学简介; 呼和浩特市第二中学创建绿色学校工作纪实;呼和浩特市第二中学欢庆60华诞) [16] Liusine (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was looking at CNKI a minute ago. Which says it includes "journals, doctoral dissertations, masters' theses, proceedings, newspapers, yearbooks, statistical yearbooks, ebooks, patents and standards", not just journals. So the articles could potentially be any one of those. There's no way to tell from your Dropbox links. At least not that I can see. I can't read Chinese though, but I'd still need a definative answer that they are journal articles to give them a thumbs up. Since it's like a 1/9 chance that they are (I'm at least pretty sure the source about the tree species is not from a journal). That said, someone could probably at least make a weak keep argument at this point if nothing else. Adamant1 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adamant1, it is very easy to tell whether it is a journal or something else. Jumpytoo also listed journal name (for example, journal=内蒙古教育) in the references. The journal name is ALWAYS printed in the PDF file in Chinese. For master's thesis, the title and website will indicate that category (呼和浩特市第二中学学生信息素养的调查研究--《内蒙古师范大学》2007年硕士论文 means it is a master's thesis=硕士论文). If you open Jumpytoo's links in a cell phone browser (e.g. Safari on iPhone), the journal name and publishing date is also shown. Liusine (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Other editors whose opinions were based on expired early sources: please come here and update your votes considering the multiple new references from different newspapers/journals. If not, your votes will not count. Liusine (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure their votes will count anyway. They aren't voided just because someone finds a couple of new sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for revealing the dark side of Wiki's AfD. Liusine (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a "vote" anyway. 99% of the time if the rational someone gives is bunk the closing admin will just ignore it. Either that or list the AfD to get more opinions. Both are perfectly fine. Realistically it would be way to convoluted if a ton of people who have voted already had to cross out their votes and do the whole thing over again every time new sources come along. Especially for people who still agree with their original reasons. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:54, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury, CSD G3: Blatant hoax. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tejgaon Circle Upazila[edit]

Tejgaon Circle Upazila (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 source found stating that this is an Upazila. The two cited sources do not mention the Upazila. Sun8908 Talk 05:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 05:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 05:25, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Newport[edit]

Alex Newport (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 person; only sourced to iMDB, significantly expanded by article's subject wizzito | say hello! 04:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 04:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 04:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 04:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 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 delete - WP:CSD#A7 applies. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red Love (band)[edit]

Red Love (band) (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, article created by member of the band, no sources I could find except primary ones and indie blogs like http://www.itsallindie.com/2016/09/listen-red-love-does-it-make-you.html and https://www.thelineofbestfit.com/new-music/discovery/matt-tong-ex-bloc-party-and-alex-newport-air-gone-tomorrow-their-debut-sing and https://buzzbands.la/2015/06/22/stream-red-love-gone-tomorrow/ wizzito | say hello! 04:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 04:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 04:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 04:55, 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 keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creativity and mental health[edit]

Creativity and mental health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically I think that this article is original research. It's written by student(s) in an essay like format using primary sources and has a lot of original synthesis. This would be better placed in a student assignment or a submission to a medical journal. I don't think there is any salvagable content here and so propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:59, 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. The movie won the awards, not the actress; unless the coverage of the awards discusses her, it doesn't confer any notability on her. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mei Kayama[edit]

Mei Kayama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An actress who has appeared only in one film doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Htanaungg (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 04:21, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rosha (subcaste)[edit]

Rosha (subcaste) (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:V for lack of substantive reliable (ie NOT Raj-era) sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:21, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pressley Hosbach[edit]

Pressley Hosbach (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 independent and/or significant coverage exists for this subject. The three sources used (YouTube, as well as her personal Instagram and TikTok pages) are unreliable. I also feel there might be some WP:COI issues here. Nevertheless, it's better for the community to make the final decision. Keivan.fTalk 03:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:56, 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 keep. I've discounted the votes of sockpuppets. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G. Suresh Kumar[edit]

G. Suresh Kumar (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 GNG as current article lacking reliable sources INeedToFlyForever (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely not appreciable as the nominator nominated the article for deletion. As I checked the user details of the nominator and I found that a user with just a year-old on Wikipedia (Not much experienced) and has just 1000+ edits also an extended confirmed user. Does he have the right to nominate an Articles?, because most of his edits on Wikipedia is Afd and still nominating development articles for deletion. According to the article, G. Suresh Kumar is one of the tops contributed Malayalam film producers and produced about 32 films. I accept that he has not much coverage in English that is why I had put a stub on the article and seek help to expand it. There are media coverages in regional languages also the IMDb. You can also check Revathy Kalamandhir which is his production banner. While improving the articles, Nominating the article for deletion is so disappointing and that kind of practice might affect the editor's interest in Wikipedia. Instead of nominating for deletion, he can try to improve the article. He nominated the article because it lacks source, but he can add a citation tag instead of doing it. I request to keep the article -Author- Ambili123 (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla: Could you please explain the coverage of the article T. P. Madhavan (only 6 references cited, first one is not working, also cited facebook. Rest of them are not covering his notability.. then why did not take a nomination to get it deleted ?? Is that still falling under GNG? I suspect the nominator and User:Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla are closely connected. Suspecting Sockupuppetry. Ambili123 (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ambili123 T. P. Madhavan has acted in more than 600 films which makes him pass WP:NACTOR. Could you explain how G. Suresh Kumar passes NACTOR or WP:FILMMAKER. BTW if you think Im a sock of the nominator, open an SPI rather than accussing me for it here. It is considered as a form of personal attack. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 20:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Striking comments by blocked sockpuppet: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sulshanamoodhi. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla: You don’t need to be worried. Nobody is attacking you personally. If I suspect you, definitely I will report it to the admins. Leave it!!

You told that he acted 600 films and I also know that he passes WP:NACTOR, but where is the reliable sources ? You said in case of G Suresh Kumar that it fails GNG, that’s why I wondered. As you are a Keralite, you also know him, If don’t please try to know about him, he haven't much english coverages. I have collected his informations from IMDb as well as other sources. Also he acted in 21 films as an actor. His production house is there on Wikipedia then why you two are opposing him. We know about him like you do in case of T.P Madhavan sir, also why you don't take actions against unesassary articles from this industry!! Do it!! Thank you. I'm not warring!! I'm just sharing the thoughts. How some impossible things are possible to someone!! Ambili123 (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambili123, There are millions of articles in en-wik. Im not a WIKIGOD to identify the unnecessary articles and I dont have time for it. I only voted here because I came across it. And you are taking things to a wrong path here. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 20:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Striking comments by blocked sockpuppet: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sulshanamoodhi. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Priyatungi (talk) 04:24, 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 and redirect to Creation science#Creationist cosmologies. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creationist cosmologies[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Creationist cosmologies (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 last nominated this article for deletion in 2014. Since then, the article has gotten worse and the consensus on Wikipedia clearer for what fringe content deserves preserving and which needs trashing. In the case of this article, the vast majority of the content is sourced entirely to creationists. Because of the WP:FRINGE nature of the topic, we really need to find some independent evaluation of these ideas for them to be properly discussed at Wikipedia... but such sources are lacking. There are a few topics which have been mentioned by independent sources, but these can be safely discussed at creation science or Young Earth creationism. The detailed exploration of the minutiae of how various evangelical Christians try to square the circle of their religious faith with scientific facts cannot properly be handled by Wikipedia as we service only to repeat what has been identified as the verifiable and reliable ideas that have been noticed enough to be properly contextualized. This article cannot do that because most of the ideas are so marginalized as to be ignored. Thus, the article is essentially a WP:POVFORK of physical cosmology and also something of a synthetic amalgamation of ideas various creationists have about cosmology (you won't find any other reference on the planet which puts together all the different cosmologies creationists believe in as one coherent topic like this). All around, this is a pretty bad article and I don't see how it can ever get to the point of being salvageable. jps (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 01:46, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rubén Aguilar[edit]

Rubén Aguilar (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 fails WP:GNG. Completely unsourced and written like a mess. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:53, 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.
More