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. czar 06:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quizplus[edit]

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

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

Blatant non notable organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus WP:NCORP isn’t met. A before search links me to self published unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG Chetsford (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – the sources in the article are all clearly unreliable (blogs, etc.), and searching yields only more of the same. Fails WP:NCORP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find anything as significant coverage on Google. Doesn't pass any notability guidelines.Brayan ocaner (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage can be found. Medium is a blogging platform and not acceptable. Lesliechin1 (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't find any reliable source on it. SimilarWeb is a web analytic tool, medium is a blogging platform and the others are websites. None of those are acceptable as reference. Mommmyy (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dada (2005 film)[edit]

Dada (2005 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Didn't find any reviews or detailed articles on the film. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not satisfy notability guideline for films.Brayan ocaner (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia editors should not be trying to turn Wikipedia into an IMDb mirror. Platonk (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this is a legitimate term used in academic publications that passes GNG. Concerns over original research can be addressed through editing or on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Protestantism[edit]

Proto-Protestantism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article is complete OR; it is a best a user-made compilation of any prominent intellectual who has had one or two idea which could fit in the Five solae. There is no RS given to support the concept of "Proto-Protestantism"; none of the source given talk about the subject of the article. Veverve (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubify or delete: A look through Google Scholar show it's a term that's at least been used by academics to an extent. However, the article as it stands is nearly 100% WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Basically the entire article should be gutted and replaced with a few sentences of relevantly-sourced content. However, I can also support delete in the form of WP:TNT. Curbon7 (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm not sure because I've definitely seen this term before in the pre-Luther context. I'll do some digging. If there is any certain OR in it, however, it should just be taken out. TNT could well be the best option. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. From what I can see after only rudimentary research, this is an authentic term. I have to say that the article needs development, not deletion, even though some of the current content may well be ditched. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The topic meets the general notability guideline WP:GNG as the references and further reading section cite several books on the subject. The article may need improvement, but content does not affect notability WP:CONTN. Books, such a The Pilgrim Church by E.H. Broadbent, trace the development of protestant ideas in various groups throughout the history of Christianity. Basically, they all share the themes of anti-clericalism (especially corrupt clergy), denial of the sacraments and a desire to return to a purer form of Christianity, like the Apostolic Church. - Epinoia (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Epinoia: Could you indicate which source use the term "Proto-Protestantism"? "Things that look like they have some elements of Protestantism before the Reform which can be found here an there throughout history" is what the article contains, and it is OR. Either the concept exists in RSs, or it does not meet the GNG. Veverve (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- see comment by Curbon7, A look through Google Scholar show it's a term that's at least been used by academics to an extent - a few other sources are:

- “Foxe sought to establish the continuity of a proto-Protestant piety from apostolic times to the Reformation” in Where Was Your Church before Luther? by S.J. Barnett on JSTOR.org

- “Reformer” Before the Reformation: Regarding the Issue of Proto-Protestant Views of John Wycliffe, Tatiana G. Chugunova et. al., Springer International Publishing

- Chaucer Was A Proto‐Protestant by Stephanie Trigg, University of Melborne, on ResearchGate

- a search on Google with turn up other sources for Proto-Protestant - Epinoia (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - my comment will probably be kinda useless, I am still not very experienced with wikipedia, and often make mistakes. I still believe this an usefull article to have and groups such as Waldensians clearly reflect Protestant views --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not a made up term. Now whether it needs to be stubified or the WP:OR needs to be removed should be left to a talk page discussion. desmay (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless someone can say that we have something similar elsewhere. This is in the nature of a list article, listing movements seen as precursors of Protestantism. As a list, it does not need a lot of references: these will be in the more detailed article on each movement. A few or the movements may be ones that normal Protestants would regard as heretical. Precursors of Protestantism might be a better name. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a more meaningful name, Peter. Good idea. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as it is a legitimate term.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:25, 25 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunato Ventura[edit]

Fortunato Ventura (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. can't find any reliable sources focusing on him or his career, exhibitions and ect.Mahdiar86 (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also fails WP:NARTIST.Mahdiar86 (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions.Mahdiar86 (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.Mahdiar86 (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Even if there are sources out there, this article makes no claim of importance and it is therefore eligible for speedy deletion per WP:A7. I too could find nothing on this artist. So fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, looks like it has been deleted twice at the Spanish Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage of this subject to be found. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:07, 26 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 23:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uttarakhand Seva Nidhi Environmental Education Centre[edit]

Uttarakhand Seva Nidhi Environmental Education Centre (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:N, WP:RS and WP:NOT — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 16:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strokkers[edit]

Strokkers (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 animated series that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG and may have never actually been released. The current sources, which are all just routine coverage of the show's production, all refer to it as still being in production, and I can find no other coverage on this show at all past that. I checked the Spanish language Wikipedia in search of any additional information, and it does not appear that they even have an article on the show, and their article on the show's production company does not mention it. The most I can gather is that a pilot was produced for this show, but it was never picked up. Rorshacma (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 02:01, 26 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 23:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belmont Club[edit]

Belmont 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)

Not very notable blog. All RSes listed in the article are dead links. A WP:BEFORE shows no RS coverage about the blog, only passing mentions; nothing that meets WP:NWEB, WP:GNG or any other notability criterion. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would have to be shown, with independent third-party coverage in solid RSes. Tagged for questionable notability since 2013 without improvement. David Gerard (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No disagreements. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 22:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some of the things here are uncited as well. SomeWhatLife (talk)

Striked sock Jumpytoo Talk 20:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with the rest of you. --Rrmmll22 (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as G5. Geschichte (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nihal Sadiq[edit]

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

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

Known for only composing two Malayalam songs. Yet to pass GNG Alphaonekannan (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Alphaonekannan (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Alphaonekannan (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Alphaonekannan (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G5. —C.Fred (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnajeev TR[edit]

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

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

A tik tok celebrity who fails GNG Alphaonekannan (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Alphaonekannan (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom, the article fails GNG and contains excessive citations. Also the article not correctly structured, believe that it needs more contents. I also suggest the author to improve the article during this nomination if you can, otherwise I am voting the article to delete. Also somebody fix the AfD template on the article. Onmyway22 (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The professional-looking portrait of the article subject was taken by the editor that created the article. They claim they are just a fan who asked them for a picture, but there is a potential COI here. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that User:0"cleopatra"0 has moved the article to the draft namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back to main space and added back the AfD tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE: Doesn't meet WP:GNG, also fails WP:NACTOR.Advait (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The only ACCEPT comment just below is added by 0"cleopatra"0 who is the author of article Onmyway22 (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since said user has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, I have removed their comment. —C.Fred (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that information, I think that the article can be deleted under WP:G5. On a related note, I have tagged the photograph in the infobox as a copyright violation on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG, obvious WP:COI, etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:21, 23 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) 🐱 21:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GRAITEC Advance[edit]

GRAITEC Advance (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 sources demonstrate notability. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn and stubified. Well, turns out, there is at least one proper source. I've trimmed what was not based on proper sources, and what is left is effectively a one sentence stub, but there is room for improvement with the identified chapter. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Kuku[edit]

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

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

This looks like an elaborate fabrication, or at least more like folk legend than actual history. I simply cannot find anything about this that isn't either A) a Wikipedia mirror or B) Kabyle independentist blogs (who don't provide much detail, and are not reliable sources in any case). A previous version of the article has some reliable sources, but on further inspection, these appear to be unrelated and do not mention the topic by name (or even the content they were supposed to support), and do not inspire confidence. Delete as failing WP:V, at the very least. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there is extensive coverage of it in French sources. Mccapra (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of these French sources are very old. The one that was already in the article, Roberts 2014 (in English), doesn't mention the "Kingdom" but only the "lords of Koukou"... I think it would actually be better to write a new article, based on these sources, than to stick with whatever is the current one: draftifying until a version which complies with WP:V can be made could be an option. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The first english language source cited in the article has an entire chapter (Chapter 6, starting on page 151) devoted to this topic. Roberts (2014) ("The 'kingdom' of Koukou that was established by the Ath l-Qadi dynasty and lasted for over a century (c 1515-1632 or 1638 CE) ...."). I am thus confused about OP's statement about inability to find any RS sources given that I.B. Tauris was a reputable publisher as far as I know, but then I am easily confused. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I couldn't see that on my version of google's preview :( (and the chapter title is indeed, as I was saying, about the "lords of Koukou". Curiously, "Kingdom" is also put between marks, as one would usually do when implying doubt about something) This source should probably be used to write a new article, which is not based on the unsourced/fake sourced fabrications of the former. And if the chapter starts on page 151 (I've now managed to get the first page of it), then the given page number, 165, is yet another fabrication, because that single sentence of information can indeed be found on page 151. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:26, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Net Neutrality in 2018[edit]

Net Neutrality in 2018 (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:NOTNEWS. We don't need this level of detail on the history of net neutrality, and deletion is preferred to this unlikely title redirecting there. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. It doesn't even make sense for Net neutrality to have a section dedicated to 2018, so it seems highly dubious that this article should exist. Danstronger (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too many problems with this article and even its subject. Only two of the sources were from 2018 anyway. Does not even link to net neutrality and instead spells it in upper case like it was some trademark. And certainly more people than just Tim Wu use the term in the generic sense, etc. I do see that the net neutrality article is too long, but breaking it up by year does not seem to be useful, since progress tends to go in spurts. W Nowicki (talk)

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) 🐱 21:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pkt Cash[edit]

Pkt Cash (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 a notable cryptocurrency. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it stands - needs better RSes - David Gerard (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete can't find any independent sources to support an article. I don't think the topic meets WP:GNG. Charitably we could say WP:TOOSOON? Ajpolino (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viridian Green Laser Sights[edit]

Viridian Green Laser Sights (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:NCORP fail as far as I can tell. I just stubified it from an overly-promotional product list (and the only sources that were removed were links to the company website), but I cannot find any third-party SIGCOV. Digging through Google gave me a couple of product announcements in industry mags and a couple blog posts; the best source I found was this and that article sure as heck looks like native advertising to me. The original version claimed that the company was responsible for a number of firearm innovations - including green and red laser sights (and a bunch of other things), which would at least be a reasonable claim to significance, but I have not found any sources that support that other than the company's own branding. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completeness, Special:Permalink/1046063586 is what the page looked like pre-stubification, in case that changes anyone's views. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete More or less a direct copy from the site. Great name though. scope_creep^Talk 23:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Surely lacks valid information except some newspapers/magazines mentioned the company name as weapon maker. It does not meets WP:NCORP guidelines. Mommmyy (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryanna Reynolds[edit]

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

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

Sources in the article mention her as being involved with these shows, but I am unable to find significant discussion of the individual in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 19:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with the nominator no significant coverage. Does not meet [WP:GNG]--Rrmmll22 (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to be just an entertainment reporter, one of hundreds. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BIO. Simply appearing on Beauty and the Geek doesn't make you notable. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen Myanmar International[edit]

The Queen Myanmar International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't meet with WP:GNG.  ||  Orbit Wharf 19:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions.  ||  Orbit Wharf 19:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No SIGCOV of RS could be found. Htanaungg (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I have done extensive searches for alternative names, all of the winners, and some questionable combinations of keywords to find anything, both in English and Burmese, but I only get significant coverage as it relates to Myanmar's entries to the Miss International Queen. This article may be saved if we change the scope from this specific pageant to something like Myanmar at the Miss International Queen - that would be a close case, but the current article is not notable based on what I've read. It is possible that it will be notable in a few years, but with the current situation, that's not clear - see closure of the Myanmar times. Urve (talk) 09:31, 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. No support for this proposal. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Monte Cristi[edit]

Battle of Monte Cristi (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 cite any sources. So doesn't meet with WP:GNG.  ||  Orbit Wharf 18:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  ||  Orbit Wharf 18:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Nominator did not perform a WP:BEFORE search. The Spanish Wikipedia article has some good sources, and there seem to be a few offline sources. Curbon7 (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Curbon7 above. Article needs development, not deletion. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Curbon7. The Febres-Cordero Carrillo article is very good, with particularly sustained coverage of the event. My Spanish is poor, but Juan Bosch's La Guerra de la Restauración appears to take note of its significance, and especially its aftermath, c. page 186. Others are available, but those require some care to translate to make sure they are not referring to a c 1863 Monte Cristi event. Urve (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, which seems obvious after a glance at the Spanish-language version. I hope the nom understands that lack of current sources in the article isn't sufficient grounds for an AfD. --Lockley (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously, per the above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep -- No valid deletion ground given. The test is verifiability, not being verified by references. This is not a BLP case. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:09, 23 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. Consensus is to delete all. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2014 United States Soccer Federation presidential election[edit]

2014 United States Soccer Federation presidential election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Similar rationale to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994 United States Soccer Federation presidential election. I am bundling these three elections together because none of them seem to pass WP:GNG as they only get trivial coverage such as this from organisations directly connected with USSF. The articles are all redundant as the information is already covered well enough in Sunil Gulati and United States Soccer Federation.

As well as GNG, these all seem to fail WP:NEVENT as none of these unopposed elections seem to have any lasting notability (WP:LASTING) nor did any of them have any apparent widespread international impact (WP:GEOSCOPE). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reason:

2010 United States Soccer Federation presidential election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2006 United States Soccer Federation presidential election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. As for the 1994 one previously, these are WP:TRIVIA. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all fail WP:GNG, as per the 1994 one. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge content into United States Soccer Federation#Leadership. I'm not sure I agree on the criteria, as these fail WP:COVERAGE for me, but we agree that they don't seem to meet WP:EVENT and thus shouldn't be standalone articles. That said, the choosing of leadership at a major organization such as the USSF shouldn't go unnoticed and I feel the best landing spot for this would be the Leadership section of USSF as linked earlier. GauchoDude (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, there can't be much to merge here. Geschichte (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, just like the 1994 one, this isn't a significant election event.--Mvqr (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reason:

2002 United States Soccer Federation presidential election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1998 United States Soccer Federation presidential election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1990 United States Soccer Federation presidential election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1988 United States Soccer Federation presidential election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joseph2302 (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with delete all for the four newly added ones above. Courtesy pinging other participants in case they have any objections to the newly added articles being bundled. @GiantSnowman:, @No Great Shaker:, @GauchoDude:, @Mvqr:, @Geschichte: Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No argument from me, vote would still be the same. Appreciate the bundle as the cases are similar. GauchoDude (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Spiderone. No objections from me either. They should all be deleted. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, delete all, including the new ones. GiantSnowman 07:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too to deleting all of them.--Mvqr (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Theory[edit]

Star Wars Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I don't see enough depth-of-coverage to meet WP:WEB or WP:GNG. The person hasn't received significant coverage. Nemov (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nemov (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It clearly passes the general notability guidelines. https://www.newsweek.com/star-wars-theory-disney-youtube-claim-copyright-reddit-1293172 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/star-wars-theory-madness-running-galaxys-youtube-rise-skywalker/ https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/star-wars-theory-pablo-hidalgo-luke-skywalker-1234875850/ and other sources are referenced in the article already. Dream Focus 18:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are millions of YouTube channels. Rightly most are not notable. A few are GNG, as determined by coverage in reliable sources. This channel has non-trivial coverage in multiple sources over an extended period, including in Canada, Britain and the US. This is unusual for a YouTube channel. -- GreenC 19:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Nemov, I believe the article was prodded, not nominated for deletion, meaning there was no discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC):Bbb23Thanks for the clarification. - Nemov (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a little complicated but the article was PROD'd and deleted. After that, another editor created their own version of it which was speedy deleted by Bbb23. Dream Focus asked for the page that was PROD'd to be restored, which is permissible, so I restored the version that had been PROD'd minus the recent edits. The fact that they were not notified was an unfortunate oversight but not the reason for page restoration. I have removed PROD tags from other articles if the page tagger did not notify the page creator but it wasn't a factor in this case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Bbb23, thanks for the clarification. Nemov (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dream. An easy WP:GNG pass per extensive coverage in reliable sources. Nothing gained by destroying the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I just don't see the depth of coverage here. He was mentioned in a short lived controversy early in 2021. The best source was the article from almost 2 years ago in the Telegraph. That's pretty much it for significant coverage. There's just not much for which to build an article. - Nemov (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He has interviewed people who worked on various Star Wars films and wrote bestselling Star Wars novels. [1] I would like to add this information to the article, but Nemov seems determined to erase it. More opinions on the talk page of the article please. I would think this adds to his notability by common sense. Dream Focus 09:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and WP:TROUT User:Nemov. Efforts to delete article content while a deletion discussion is ongoing suggest bad faith. BD2412 T 00:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

• Comment BD2412, I just restored the article to its state before it was originally deleted. I don't have an issue with the article remaining if that's the consensus. However, new additions must meet guidelines. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, you should indent responses. Second, it is entirely permissible for an editor to seek to improve the article during the deletion process. Contesting that makes it seem as though you want the article kept, and are just concerned about its contents. BD2412 T 01:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks and I appreciate the feedback. Following the guidelines are more important to me than user perception. I'd rather not get into the current edit being contested. It's not related to this AFD and shouldn't be debated here, but I assure you my actions are in good faith. Happy editing! Nemov (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it has like 3 million subscribers. Eulenbär (talk) 12:13, 25 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 Wrong forum. AfD is not for merger proposals, and the RfC invoked by the nominator was about "controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting", not mergers. Sandstein 11:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Flail from Heaven[edit]

The Flail from Heaven (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 proposing a merge of these three tagged articles (and, presumably, other Grimm Fairy Tales not listed in the "Notable Tales" section of ((Brothers Grimm))) into a new list article (presumptively List of Grimms' Fairy Tales), similar to what I've been doing with List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps. (It would be split for size if necessary.) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

The Crumbs on the Table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Little Peasant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Keep (procedural), wrong forum, nominator wants to merge these articles not delete them so should go thru WP:MERGE procedures. Btw, if these were up for the deletion i would say "keep" as meeting no. 5 of WP:NBOOK as Grimm bros. are "so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable" (ditto, opposed to any merging). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be misinterpreting [2] this discussion. Also, to a certain extent, I do want to demonstrate consensus these pages should not be deleted outright. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the nominator. While normally I'd go with this notable because the author has historical significance, I can see where things would get extremely obtuse and junky if there are separate (probably trivial) articles for every single short story an author, historical or not, writes. So I think a merge is warranted in this case IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:57, 23 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) 🐱 21:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Latin America Connexions[edit]

Latin America Connexions (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 unsourced article about a defunct newspaper. I have found reliable sources that reference content published in the newspaper ([3]), but nothing about the newspaper. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul Higher Secondary School, Indore[edit]

St. Paul Higher Secondary School, Indore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An article that has been nominated twice before and both times the result has been keep. Not a single source listed in the article is related to the subject nor establishes any information about this school. This clearly fails GNG. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Has the consensus the closer cited in the most previous AfD fallen out of favor? Curbon7 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES links us to a Feb 2017 RfC where consensus on such schools did change so that we can now say "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the school certainly exists. I can find notable or near-notable people cited as attending the school, and the documented visit by Mother Teresa and Journal of Marriage and Family paper are also small little snippets or breadcrumbs. None of this amounts to SIGCOV or GNG, and I was unable to find any depth of coverage. tedder (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The two references in the article do not directly relate to the school and I can't find any sources that do. So this clearly fails the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.Advait (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elevated Dermatology[edit]

Elevated Dermatology (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 healthcare provider. Current sourcing is all affiliated/primary; before check reveals nothing that would meet WP:NCORP standards. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as WP:G11 spam, no attempt to assert notability. Reywas92^Talk 19:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, per above; obviously promotional with no assertion of notability. jp×g 01:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:G11, no indication of notability, and looks promotional. Sources are all databases or not independent. Avilich (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under G11 as an effectively unsourced, wholly promotional article by a single-user editor. --Lockley (talk) 01:40, 25 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 23:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mondeca[edit]

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

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

This company does not seem to have any coverage at all, beyond data scrapers and auto-generated or user-generated business profiles. No sources to be found in the article and I found difficulty finding anything but press releases and user-generated content in my own search. I do see that it has appeared in industry journals, but after digging deeper, all I can see are some passing mentions. If the article were to be rewritten (which I believe it would need to be if it were to follow MOS), it would need reliable, independent, third-party sources to support its notability. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I found no reliable source for it and the article does not have any reference at all. It won't pass the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. Mommmyy (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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) 🐱 21:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Path Woods, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania[edit]

Deer Path Woods, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Based upon historical research of the area, this neighborhood would not meet Wiki's GNG even if the article were improved upon. Other nearby neighborhoods on historical settlements even were voted for deletion in the past, and the neighborhood of this article is even less historically significant. Penndyl (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete – WP:CSD#G5 applies. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh VDM[edit]

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

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

This suffers from WP:BOMBARD. I have sample checked references at random, and find interviews with the subject, passing mentions and, so far, nothing that is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:BIO Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep — notability guidelines state that the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"— that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary. "In the Nigerian music industry, awards like Nigeria Entertainment Awards, City People Entertainment Awards and All Africa Music Awards are all highly prestigious awards in the Nigerian and in Africa Music space, winning as the best producer of the year is "worthy of notice" or "remarkable or unusual enough to deserve attention" A quick search using https://www.google.com/search?q=Fresh+VDM&tbm=nws&sxsrf=AOaemvLEIBxER9iB9z5GFyGi7t2yzqBxCw:1634717045496&ei=dc1vYea1Hc-TsAfQubUg&start=0&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwimxLfGw9jzAhXPCewKHdBcDQQ4ChDy0wN6BAgBEDQ&biw=1328&bih=1066&dpr=1 can slightly convince you of the subject popularity within the space of Nigerian music, fine, People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources but If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability Eddysocial (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struck sock !vote. Celestina007 (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kolapoimam which is in the process of final Admin closure. This suggests that this article can be disposed of as one created by a blocked editor evading a block, and that this discussion may be closed early Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:05, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Neighbor (1993 film)[edit]

The Neighbor (1993 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. Has only one review from Dennis Schwartz. Needs two or more reviews/significant sources in order to be eligible. Besides the Schwartz review, I found no other reviews in Rotten Tomatoes and nothing else on a WP:BEFORE search. The Film Creator (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What I found here was this that looks significant. TV Guide is not. Then there are papers. The film was blurbed in many newspapers, but a more review-y source is the film column in The Vancouver Sun of 12 November 1993, also syndicated to, Calgary Herald, Edmonton Journal, The Ottawa Citizen. Finally, the movie is covered by five paragraphs in the article "Unnecessary violence in film irks Steiger", Star-Phoenix (Saskatoon) 13 November 1992, i.e. while filming. Geschichte (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I found this: https://www.allmovie.com/movie/the-neighbor-v34741 with a 3-star rating. It looks significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViajeroLibre (talk • contribs) 17:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources that various editors have found are sufficient to determine that the film is notable, and I think that this encyclopedia should have an article about each movie that an Oscar winning actor like Rod Steiger starred in. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources provided above. Note that despite having a notable lead actor, that in itself does not make the film notable as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. That said, the sources provided give this film enough coverage to pass WP:NFO. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:13, 26 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) 🐱 21:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphane Tortajada[edit]

Stéphane Tortajada (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 notable enough for Wikipedia; the article screeeeams "promotional" to me and I'm surprised it's been up since 2011. The subject is a native of Nice, France, and the article about him was deleted from the French Wikipedia back in 2017. To steal an idea from the Google translation of the deletion nom over there, there are not enough high-quality secondary sources about this person to sustain an article here. The article was created by a single-purpose account, C2051869, which also created the frwiki version of this article (both accounts have slightly different names due to the single user login process). Graham87 15:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lack of participation (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry's Kids (band)[edit]

Jerry's Kids (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)

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:BAND. SL93 (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I spent some time looking, and get the impression the band actually had a devoted following - small, but devoted. However, there just wasn't enough to meet GNG nor WP:BAND. The closest was item 6: "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians..."; band member Chris Doherty has an article. Some details of my search follow.

The article has no references. Searching found some sources, e.g.:

• https://www.taang.com/jerry-s-kids . This is one of the band's labels, so it's not independent. Also, there's a copyright violation! Either this link stole from Wikipedia, or Wikipedia stole from it. I refer to the paragraph that starts with "Frontman Bryan Jones and rhythm guitar player Dave Aronson left the band..."
• There are tons of other music-based sources, and even social media (e.g., discogs, amazon, facebook), but I didn't see anything especially useful.
• brief entries in books, e.g., "American Hardcore", which indicated the band once played at CBGB.

FWIW, I looked at the external links on the article page.

• Suburban Voice Interview – Jerry's Kids interview from 1982 led me to https://web.archive.org/web/20100912032558/http://www.operationphoenixrecords.com/suburbanvoicejerryskids.html . Yep - it's just an interview.
• KFTH Jerry's Kids Kill From The Heart page on Jerry's Kids led me to https://web.archive.org/web/20150527094543/https://files.nyu.edu/cch223/public/usa/jerryskids_main.html . This page has some links,including to two interviews.
• Reflex/Wolfpack Records page on Discogs led me to https://web.archive.org/web/20140920013705/http://www.discogs.com/label/417465-ReflexWolfpack-Records. Nothing to speak of. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[forgot to add originally]If you want a more complete article, go to the German wikipedia at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry%E2%80%99s_Kids . There are more interviews, and a little more history. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unimportant and obscure local band that neither meets the GNG nor fulfills the criteria of WP:BAND. Ravenswing 00:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Subjective Keep. This was an established outfit within the HC scene, played out fairly widely. I'm confused by "This is one of the band's labels, so it's not independent" - see Taang! Records. Are you saying this isn't an independent label, that it belonged to the band? I've seen label bios used as sources elsewhere, although I will agree not as an indicator of notability. But the links and detail on the german article should be sufficient. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can translate my German aericle if that helps, but right now I'm on holiday for one more week. Kind regards, Grueslayer 11:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I,m sorry, Wwwhatsup, I didn't mean to imply ownership but, as you said, that it doesn't indicate notability. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk)

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) 🐱 09:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Brokerage Citylink[edit]

The Brokerage Citylink (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 notability per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:ORG. No third party sources provided. LibStar (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence of notability. Geschichte (talk) 07:07, 26 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) 🐱 22:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PEF rod[edit]

PEF rod (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 found no significant coverage for this product. SL93 (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of French supercentenarians. as a preferred WP:ATD, given there is clear consensus this person is not notable enough to have an article. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Théobald[edit]

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

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

Jules Théobald is no more notable than other people his age. There is no policy that "age X" is notable, and he was not especially high in List of the verified oldest people upon his death. As for his being the oldest man in France, this is not especially notable either. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of French supercentenarians. Not independently worthy of coverage. --Lockley (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Not notable enough for an individual article. Not enough to justify a mini-bio in List of French supercentenarians. Might be worth a redirect. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:16, 25 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ritika Khatnani[edit]

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

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

Ritika Khatnani

Indian beauty queen who does not satisfy general notability or entertainment notability as a model. This article has already been moved from article space to draft space once by User:Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla, and moved to article space by its author (who edits primarily Indian beauty contestants), so that moving it back again would be move warring.

A review of the references shows that most of them are photo galleries of the beauty contest, and do not appear to be independent or significant coverage, and some of the references appear to be the same, probably due to syndication.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. I'd also point out that all the India Times sources are invalid as they are not independent of the subject; Femina Miss India is under their ownership. The subject of the article is mostly newsworthy because of the 2021 pageant that's part of Femina Miss India. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - failed to meet the notability guidelines.---Richie Campbell (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2021
• Keep - being the winner of the second most popular national beauty pageant after Femina Miss India and the representative of an international pageant in which India is the most successful, the latest added sources highlight the article for its reliability and independent.--Mims Mentor (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep The person is notable and frequently mentioned in the news. There is a lack of reliable sources 007sak (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - One of the two main winners of Miss Diva 2021. Vpop123 (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG.Advait (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the convincing source analysis. Assertions that "this person is notable and frequently mentioned in the news" are worth about as much as the evidence provided to support them, which in this case is exactly nothing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Good source analysis provides everything you need to know. scope_creep^Talk 11:34, 26 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) 12:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Film serial killers[edit]

Film serial killers (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've been looking at this article for the better part of a year and wondered if there was any way to try to save it. Its not about actual historical serial killers on film, its not about a specific type of villain in film (such as slashers, a subject that might deserve its own article), its just a random collection of kill counts for characters, many of them not even really described as "serial killers" in most sources. I don't see this article being salvagable. ★Trekker (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the nominator is correct that the list is rather indiscriminate at the moment. I think if it could be focussed it could merit inclusion. Lightburst (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe strip down and merge to List of horror film villains? I don't think this is an appropriate encyclopedic list to sort by number of victims. Reywas92^Talk 16:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92 Given how poor the sourcing/topic of this article is and that all 10 ranked entries are already listed at List of horror film villains, doesn't just deleting this mess make more sense? Newshunter12 (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - An actual article on the history or portrayal of serial killers in film is certainly a notable topic, so its unfortunate that the current article with the title is just this rather WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of poorly sourced trivia and WP:OR. The only sources being used (aside from the one random source regarding the Universal monsters which has nothing to do with the topic of the article) are just "Top Ten" style lists of kill counts that never even use the term "serial killer" to describe the characters listed, or completely unreliable sources such as youtube videos. 16:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Per the nom and the above delete voter. The article is just WP:INDISCRIMINATE poorly sourced WP:TRIVA and WP:OR. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the nom. Trivial information that doesn't state why its relevant or important. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:13, 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ratheesh Ambat[edit]

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

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

This is a procedural nomination. I received a request to move (re-title) this article because the fillmaker's name is spelled wrong, and the article's title should be Rathish Ambat. It turns out that in 2019, an Admin blocked/salted articles of that title because someone kept recreating them, and presumably the reason was non-notability. See this: [4]. In 2020 someone created the article again by simply misspelling his name in the title. The Admin recommends discussing the filmmaker's notability in the present day. My personal opinion is that his directing efforts are only mentioned briefly in sources that are actually about the films, or sources that are unreliable in their own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If Mr. Ambat is declared notable this time, Admin action will be required to move the present article to the correct spelling of the man's name, because as of now that title is blocked indefinitely. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree with nom. This is not the first time I see this kind of workaround the rules. Gentleman wiki (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep easily notable, article could be expanded but I see plenty of sources online - a working director who gets coverage in the press. Added some. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The person has got considerable press coverage. But the article lacks information, Need expansion Jiiwex (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment article expanded, more sources added. In reply to the above comment, you are more than welcome to Google him or look up his name in leading Indian newspapers - you'll see great coverage of his work. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is enough sources cited now to establish notability. 007sak (talk) 08:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and change title if necessary. Dear Debasish (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silktide[edit]

Silktide (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 article, with extensive content additions by SPAs. Previous versions included huge swathes of primary-sourced WP:BROCHURE that have been removed from the current version; what's left is the single publicity campaign listed in the article. No evidence of notability. From a WP:BEFORE, RS coverage appears to be solely said single publicity campaign listed in the article; no coverage that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH. David Gerard (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No in-depth coverage apart from the BBC piece. 15 (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Borderline in my opinion. First I thought it might just be Oliver's private consulting business, since it is private, but indications it might have a dozen or so employees. Any web site is "worldwide" so that is common puffery. There are a few mentions in publications like Forbes, but this article really has not much left to salvage. Too bad for a company supposedly around for 20 years? Would support delete and start over if they ever do get notable enough. W Nowicki (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nando Silva[edit]

Nando Silva (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 and the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL, his professional play being limited to 109 minutes (barely more than one game) in the league and no cup games. Also has had an unassuming amateur career since leaving the pro tier. Geschichte (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Passing NFOOTY does not automatically make a subject notable. GauchoDude (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with that argument.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: WP:ATHLETE states that "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below [as in NFOOTY], then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article," then later "The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." The purpose of this AfD is to shed light as to whether the subject passes GNG, which it appears they have not, not whether they've made it into 1 minute of a fully professional league. GauchoDude (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While technically passes WP:NFOOTBALL, fails WP:GNG which supersedes. Consensus for this situation resulting in delete on AfD discussions for Olymbios Antoniades, Agapios Agapiou, et. al. GauchoDude (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Passes NFOOTY. Still fails to pass GNG. Lorenzo the great (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG.Advait (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is no indication nor any evidence that Nando Silva meets GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per failing WP:GNG. 1 minute of WP:FPL doesn't give automatic notability. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:20, 23 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) 10:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ari (footballer, born 1994)[edit]

Ari (footballer, born 1994) (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 and the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL, his professional play being limited to 100 minutes (barely more than one game) in the league and cup. Also has had an unassuming amateur career since leaving the pro tier. Geschichte (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While technically passes WP:NFOOTBALL, fails WP:GNG which supersedes. Consensus for this situation resulting in delete on AfD discussions for Olymbios Antoniades, Agapios Agapiou, et. al. GauchoDude (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I will refer to the same rationale as discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nando_Silva in that we're attempting to find whether this subjection passes GNG, not NFOOTY. GauchoDude (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheol (album)[edit]

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

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

Very obscure album from an already obscure band. Nearly all of the references are trivial mentions per WP:NMUSIC, the other is a single review from a magazine's website. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. The "single review" was actually two, and "a magazine" is a WP:RS. Since I added two more reviews this is also a WP:HEY situation, not that it was very hard work. They all showed up in the first page of Google hits. I do however believe that this is obscure to AlphabeticThing9. Geschichte (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do reviews, on their own, constitute notability? WP:NALBUM essentially says that albums need to meet the general notability guidelines. A couple of simple reviews don't appear to meet WP:SIGCOV AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in reviewing, they write about the albums. I think that writing about something counts as coverage if the source is reliable. For the same reason, films have a condition of at least 2 reviews to be kept. Now, Youtube views is surely not a precondition that's included in any guideline... Geschichte (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not a particularly obscure band or album, and the coverage is just about enough to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be quite obscure. Taking one of the songs', The Infernal Ceremony, views on YouTube for example, it doesn't even crack 4000 on its most highly viewed video. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:NALBUM per above arguments. The sources in the article (except for the first one that is the band's website) are reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 04:01, 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. There's two somewhat separate issues identified here and in the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. The first is redundancy with the content at Fields medal. This is a strong argument, and rebuttal would require demonstrating the encyclopedic nature of the content in this list that is not in that article. The second is the question of original research, and whether the synthetic tables are based on reliable sources. The two questions are related, because the organization of this list is the key difference between the two articles. By and large, those !voting keep have failed to demonstrate that reliable sources examine Fields medal winners by affiliation, instead pointing to the significance of the medal or the fact that each item is individually sourced, neither of which have any bearing on the reasons for deletion. For the record, I would not normally give a different discussion any weight, except that very many !voters referenced that list and that discussion as the basis for their !vote. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation[edit]

List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This list is a WP:CONTENTFORK from Fields Medal. This section in the Fields Medal article clearly and concisely informs readers of medalists' relevent institutional affiliations. Per the content fork guidelines, spin off articles are accepted "as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." This list article, however, is longer and harder to navigate than the parent article. Additionally, the format information is presented in (ranking institutions by medal tally, the overlap collumn etc) as well as the criteria for inclusion is novel and not reflected in reliable sources. It is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a database. I appreciate the great deal of work editors have put into this article, and would be sympathetic to useful information being moved into the Fields Medal article if other editors agree. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The person who opened up this topic is clearly trying to copy the on-going discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, for no apparent reason (the person who created this topic also participated in the Nobel Prize's discussion). Most arguments listed in the Nobel Prize's page (for or against) can be used word by word in here. I suggest administrators combine this topic with the Nobel's discussion. Minimumbias (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, nobody at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation has suggested that that list is a WP:CONTENTFORK. Since that's the main argument advanced in this nomination, combining the discussions would seem very inappropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. On reading this I was surprised to see PSL Research University tied for first place, with a French flag alongside. What on earth is that? It turns out to combine the École Normale Supérieure with the Collège de France. Everyone in France has heard of these two, but who has heard of PSL Research University? I haven't tried to edit it for the moment (for example with a footnote or a parenthesis), because that should wait for a decision on the deletion proposal, but if the article is to be kept that should be done. Athel cb (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Athel cb: Originally, the list had ENS and Collège de France separately, as was the case when I created the list. But last year some French people (I suppose) came to change them to PSL Research University, and it was then I realized the French education system was going through some reforms. You can review these changes by looking at the editing history of the list last year, or by looking at the relevant discussion on Talk Page [5]. I still thought ENS and Collège de France must be mentioned, so at the end we have the version of the list as you see today. --Minimumbias (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The French education system is always going through some reforms! Unfortunately the French authorities have a passion for changing the names of things. My local university was called Université d'Aix-Marseille II 35 years ago, but everyone called it Luminy. Then they decided to be Université de la Méditerranée (but everyone still called it Luminy). Now it is Aix-Marseille Université -- English word order, French spelling (but everyone still calls it Luminy), and we're supposed to write Aix Marseille Univ on publications (no hyphen, Université abbreviated, because the chaps in Shanghai don't know that Université means University). Anyway, getting back to PSL Research University, hardly anyone has any idea what that is. It sounds like something you'd find in China. Athel cb (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting to know! My main impression was that universities in Paris like Sorbonne split and reorganized quite often, because I had some previous visiting experience there and a group of friends and colleagues also joked about it. But perhaps this conversation is not directly relevant here on this page. If you are interested, feel free to weigh in here [6] if you have better ideas on how we should present these French universities and colleges. Thanks. Minimumbias (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are, after all, talking about a nation that had to have two revolutions and five republics. EEng 05:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me it comes across as extremely misleading to the point of dishonesty to write that Grothendieck, for instance, was affiliated with a newly-named conglomeration which did not exist when Grothendieck was active. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to the Fields Medal article, as suggested above. Athel cb (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This list is modelled after List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. This is like a "sister list". All the entries on the list are supported by at least one reliable source, so there is no violation of WP:OR. This list meets WP:LISTN. Ber31 (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of that addresses the argument actually advanced in the nomination here, namely this list being a WP:CONTENTFORK of Fields Medal#Fields medalists. TompaDompa (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation is important for many reasons. Fields Medal page already has a list of Field Medalists. The list provides information on Fields Medalists and their academic affiliations. The page is also linked with many university pages. For instance, the lead of Harvard and Princeton universities states that Harvard has 18 Fields Medalists and Princeton has 16 Fields Medalists; the information is on the basis of this list. By applying the logic of Vladimir.copic, editors can go to whatever lists in Wikipedia they don't like and call them "database" that should be deleted. If an article is "longer and harder to navigate", it doesn't mean that we should delete the article. The only "criteria" that can be used on the list is almost the universally accepted definition of "academic affiliation" (students, faculty, and short-term staff). Ber31 (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear and concise information about Fields Medalists and their academic affiliations is already provided here. This list is an unnecessary content fork from that. Further, I cannot find any reliable sources grouping or ranking institutions by number of medalists like this page does (never mind the inclusion criteria). I think Occam’s razor comes into play. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Vladimir.copic, there is a big difference. That list within Fields Medal page doesn't say anything about alumni or short-term staff. It only states affiliation at the time of the announcement of the Fields Medal, and current or last affiliation. That list provides only partial information about the long term staff. List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation shows the academic affiliations (alumni, long-term staff, and short-term staff) of Fields Medalists much more comprehensively. List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation is not a WP:CONTENTFORK from Fields Medal. Vladimir.copic, please don't try to mislead people. List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation is modelled after List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation is like a "sister list". There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. Editors should carefully read the arguments at that page. Ber31 (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing to stop editors moving missing information to the Fields Medal page if appropriate. Vladimir.copic (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. After reading the comment by Ber31 I'm revising my vote to Keep. Athel cb (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For transparency I believe this is in reference to this Talk page message from Ber31 [7]. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After reading my argument, User:Athel cb decided to change his "vote". That was his decision. Ber31 (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Fields medal is well known to be the maths equivalent of the Nobel after that discipline was snubbed by the founder. The same issues as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation therefore arise and so it's disruptive to repeat that huge discussion in which there is clearly no consensus to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My nomination is about content forking which isn’t the basis of the Nobel AfD. Of course this is a notable topic which is why it is already sufficiently covered here. I look forward to you addressing the substance of this nomination. Vladimir.copic (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominator argues that this spinoff list is longer. Well that's a good reason to keep it, there more valid information in it, all well referenced. Dream Focus 07:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not sure how, for example, listing Artur Avila as a visitor at University of Toronto, citing Avila's CV as its source, can be described as valid and well referenced information. This seem to be unverified WP:SYNTH as well as problematic for a WP:BLP. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The individual items are referenced, but the judgment about what counts as "affiliation" is a layer on top of that. For example, it might be a fact that "some award-based visiting positions such as the "Shiing-Shen Chern Visiting Professorship" in UC Berkeley are awards/honors without employment-level duty". And it might be a fact that so-and-so was awarded a Shiing-Shen Chern Visiting Professorship at Berkeley. The problem is inventing the rule that "awards/honors without employment-level duty" don't qualify as "affiliation". The same goes for every other criterion, sub-criterion and exception given in the introduction. The problem is pervasive throughout and fundamental to the list. Some projects just aren't suitable for Wikipedia. This is one of them. XOR'easter (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No. This is not inventing new rule. These are basic common sense and universally accepted definitions. Do you call yourself affiliated with another country just because you went there for a trip? Do people who go to Sweden to receive awards like Nobel prizes automatically become affiliated with Sweden or Swedish universities? Do scholars become affiliated with one university simply because they attended some 5-day conference at the university? Absolutely no. We are only explaining this common sense in academia to the public, not inventing new rules or creating subjective criteria. Education and employment (salary, taxes, etc) are the basic academic affiliations, which is universally accepted. What you are trying to do is misleading people and abusing Wikipedia policies. The NOR policy is not applicable when it comes to basic common sense. Minimumbias (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Can we please rise above the hostility here? I've said before, and I'll say again, that an effort like this could be a valuable research project. My contention is that it's unsuitable for this particular website. Why? Well, NOR applies everywhere. Hyper-specific criteria like summer visitors are generally excluded from the list unless summer work yielded significant end products such as research publications and components of Fields-winning work are not "basic common sense". An unproductive postdoc counts, while an unproductive summer term doesn't? Teaching counts for visiting positions, but not in the summer? Maybe those are ultimately reasonable lines to draw, but they're not the kind of decisions that we can make here. The introduction to the list itself indicates that there is room for debate, by saying that as for award-based visiting positions, to minimize controversy this list takes a conservative view. That's staking out a subjective criterion. I won't accuse you of misleading people, because I think you genuinely believe this page (and others like it) are both valuable and compliant with Wikipedia's policies. I might even agree with you on the former point. I can't agree on the latter. XOR'easter (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll respond again in two perspectives. 1) You are based on a particular description that you may not agree with, but are using this particular point to argue that everything we say in the article is decision-making or subjective criteria. This is incorrect. If you wish to improve specific content in this article to remove a particular point or language that you think is "OR", then use the Talk Page of the list, instead of arguing that the entire list must be deleted because of OR. 2) For the specifics, I've stated in the Nobel's page that summer school is open to the public and may not be for academic purposes. The teaching and research during this period is run on a different system and basis, sometimes not related to the university's own academics. This topic had been discussed on the Nobel's Talk Page between other editors and I before. However, for example, if one made publications using the name of the university, then it is undeniably academic affiliation. We never invented subjective criteria. We only respected universal rules. Minimumbias (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I forgot to reply to one of your comments. That "conservative view" does not mean we use subjective rule. The only "criteria" we use is universal rule: education and employment. You have to read and quote the context of "conservative view": we are simply explaining that most award-based visiting positions are awards/honors, with no employment whatsoever, and they are thus not affiliations. If you think this language of "conservative" could imply a sense of "OR", then use Talk Page and we can talk. But please do not misinterpret what we are doing and use misinterpretation to argue that the list should be deleted, because we are only respecting the universal rule (I'll not say that you are misleading people this time). --Minimumbias (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It is my position that the problems with how this list was constructed are too interwoven to be fixed piecemeal. The trouble is too big and too fundamental for the Talk page. Even if I did not think so, the deletion debate was opened without any action on my part. We're here now; talking elsewhere would be a distraction. Saying to minimize controversy this list takes a conservative view is saying that the underlying facts could also be given a more expansive view. It denies the existence of a "universal" standard. Even a reasonable or justifiable subjective judgment is still subjective. Likewise, the now-removed text about how all types of affiliations count equally represents a subjective standard. It might sound egalitarian, but choosing to be egalitarian (and doing so to that specific extent) is itself a judgment on top of the facts. XOR'easter (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1) Let me repeat. Why not read and quote the full context when we say “conservative view”? As I said, do not misinterpret what we are doing. We are only explaining that award-based positions are in general awards/honors, not affiliations. We are not implying there is a more universal criteria for affiliation. Again, if you think the language itself can be improved so that it does not sound “OR” to editors, which we are not doing, then we can use the Talk Page. But arguing something we did not do and use it for deletion is another story. 2) For your other concern, no I disagree. That sentences only meant we are doing universal counting, meaning when we see 5 people, we say 5. We do not add in any extra subjective criteria. Universal counting is not OR. --Minimumbias (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, mostly per XOR'easter and WP:POVFORK. The listing by as-awarded and most-recent affiliations in Fields medal is completely adequate and not in any need of expansion. This adds a pile of WP:SYNTH on top of it, and its violations of MOS:FLAG are in explicit opposition to the consensus at Talk:Fields Medal that nationalities should not be emphasized for this award. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No OR or synthesis. Same reasons above. Minimumbias (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you intending to reply to all delete opinions, repeating your own contrary opinion? See WP:BLUDGEON. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you implying that when we do reply, you quote some policy saying we repeat, but when we don’t, you (and some other administrators) say we do not argue enough, like in the Nobel’s deletion review page? I didn’t even repeat my words. I just referred to above. --Minimumbias (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That is indeed what you did -- stop doing it, it's a form of WP:BLUDGEONing. --JBL (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Speaking of nationalities, it's worth recalling that List of countries by number of Fields Medalists was deleted. XOR'easter (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've removed According to Wikipedia policies on no original research and objectivity/neutrality, it is impossible in Wikipedia to assign various weights to different types of affiliations. Hence, all types of affiliations count equally in the following table and throughout the whole page. from the article. It's editorializing to the extreme. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I believe precedent has been set on the WP:OR issues of this page by this recent AfD on a page that used a similar methodology. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Turning academic awards into a university pissing contest is tacky at any venue, and hosting it at Wikipedia cheapens the encyclopedia effort. –jacobolus (t) 02:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Jacobolus: Editors have no problem with lists such as Lists of best-selling video games by platform or Lists of PS one Classics or List of best-selling Game Boy video games or Lists of fictional characters by work or List of Game of the Year awards or List of video games notable for negative reception, but they target academic lists such as List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation or List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation. Ber31 (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's almost as if Fields medals and Nobel prizes are in some way more serious than video games .... (More seriously: none of the lists you've listed here suffer from the problems that this one does, suggesting you haven't understood the nomination or delete voters concerns.) --JBL (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  JBL: Those lists doesn't violate policies of this website, but I find those lists WP:TRIVIA. IMO such lists cheapens the "encyclopedia effort". Before commenting on my understanding, please read my arguments and rebuttals at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. Ber31 (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  JBL: After I reviewed your contributions, you seem to be a serious editor. Please read diff 1 and diff 2. I tried to address some of the issues that is also relevant to this AFD. There are some people at universities who like this sort of lists, but you will also find people who are not fond of such lists. Ber31 (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ber31: This is not really worth getting into (and I already regret posting my initial comment; where also I have struck the personalized parenthetical), but let me try to briefly expand: there is a difference between lists about trivial topics and lists about trivial aspects of important topics. As I read Jacobolus's comment, what it objects to is trivializing something serious -- so to say "but look, we also have lists about video games" is to miss the point entirely (you can't trivialize video games, they're trivial to begin with). --JBL (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:JayBeeEll: I got your point. And, I appreciate your point. If Wikipedia had more editors like you, maybe I would hang around this website a bit longer. Would you consider university rankings as "trivializing something serious"? I would say university rankings can be very controversial. Would you consider a graduate of a state college to be less intelligent that a Princeton graduate? Few years ago, I met with a guy with a PhD who was very smart. After I asked him about the name of the graduate school, he was reluctant to answer. He went to a "lower ranked" university. I have met with graduates of highly ranked schools who lack common sense. I am more interested in how much knowledge you have acquired. Do university rankings matter? I would say unless the ranking of the university is really low, it should not matter! :) Should lists like List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation or List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation be accused of "trivializing something serious"? We can have an endless debate on such topics. I have met with someone who holds a high position in a highly ranked university, and he was gutted by the fact that his university has "less" Nobel prize winners than the rival school. Speaking as a pragmatist, stuffs such as university rankings, Nobel Prize affiliations, etc. do seem to matter in the real world. List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation may have been deleted from this website, but universities are going will keep on counting Nobel prize affiliates on their lists. That's how the real world works. Ber31 (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the kind words. I don't think I have anything else substantive to add here. Probably this isn't your bag, but let me know if you want to work on improving Plane partition or Catalan number. --JBL (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You are entirely missing my point, and these lists are not comparable. I’m not generally opposed to lists of trivial things. (And e.g. the article Lists of best-selling video games by platform is a list of lists, not a ranking of platforms.) What is tacky about this list is that it turns an award intended to recognize and encourage future great individual mathematical work into some kind of a bulk contest between universities. This doesn’t further scientific collaboration or recognize achievement, but instead encourages chest-thumping tribalism. Once you start down this path you might equally add “list of Grammy winners by record label”, “list of UN Secretaries-General by religious affiliation”, “list of NYT best selling novels by font”, “list of poet laureats by preferred text editor”, “list of olympic sprinters by running shoe”, “list of world-champion bartenders by favorite soccer team”, or a million other original synthetic lists turning various individual recognition into unofficial group competition. –jacobolus (t) 18:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are a million ways to slice this data, and ranking the schools by this particular count seems totally arbitrary, which makes this whole page OR. Including short-term affliations that had nothing to do with the Fields Medal work seems especially problematic. A common sense approach that would give more interesting results would be to weight different affiliations differently, but that just emphasizes that there is no way to make this list without making lots of judgement calls, i.e., original research. Danstronger (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The "criteria" for the list are made in such a way that they don't violate Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view! Different universities use different subjective criteria to count Fields medal affiliates, but we cannot do that on this website because of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The only "criteria" that can be used on the list is the universally accepted definition of "academic affiliation". Ber31 (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, what we can't do is base ourselves on a "universally accepted definition" which is not, unlike what you claim, "universally accepted". If different sources come to different conclusions about what is and what is not "being affiliated to university X"; then we explicitly cannot take a position (per NPOV) on the matter and decide "this definition is the correct one" (as that would indeed be OR). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Overriding the sources is exactly the opposite of what WP:NPOV and WP:NOR mean. We can report what different universities say, but we cannot tell them that they should be saying something else. XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think this case apply to the WP:OR#Synthesis of published material. --SilverMatsu (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I saw an article by Alexander Grothendieck. The infobox for that article listed the fields, Doctoral advisors, and Doctoral students. Also, Universities also study fields other than mathematics. It's not clear to me what the list discussed in this AfD is trying to get people to understand.--SilverMatsu (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not a database; an indiscriminate collection of unrelated trivia; or a directory based on unrelated characteristics - something which this article very obviously is, as the overly broad concept of "academic affiliation" clearly does not have a significant link with "being awarded a medal". This is, as clearly identified by JayBeeEll, a "trivial aspect of an important topic", the same way that "List of US presidents by day of the week they were born in" is. Additionally, this is clearly OR, not because there are no sources, but because these sources are used in a novel, synthetic manner, and as such the whole of the content of the list, from the ground up, is original research; and because it is based on subjective criteria (which by definition cannot be "routine calculations", which are objective). Something that is first published on Wikipedia, and has no precedent in other sources [not even listed on the site of the Fields Medal itself], and is indeed only based on the synthesis of sources which say, separately, "X attended [institution]" and, often at an entirely unrelated time, "X won [award]", and blatantly explains itself as being OR in the lead (by listing its own criteria, notably in the long paragraph beginning "Further explanations on "visitors" under "Short-term academic staff" are now presented."); is obviously OR, and something built on such a shaky foundation should be deleted. Even if, by some miracle, there are enough appropriate sources to write a proper article, then WP:TNT applies, because it would require rewriting this entirely. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]