< October 01 October 03 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Lithuanian Sailing Championships[edit]

2010 Lithuanian Sailing Championships (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 general notability standards. Article is single sourced and fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. No deletion rationale provided. Nominator has had ample time to provide a rationale. No prejudice against renomination with a rationale (non-admin closure). St★lwart111 23:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Mohammed Helal Uddin[edit]

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

Breekup69 (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Breekup69 (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 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. Hog Farm Talk 23:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chhaoni[edit]

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

De-PROD'd because the word "Chhaoni" is used in some addresses that appear in books. However, that doesn't mean that it denotes a settlement that meets GEOLAND. There is no Chhaoni in Nagpur district on the 2011 Census of India, which is wonderfully comprehensive and also searchable. It also doesn't appear in the village lists of theNagpur district handbook for that census, so we can safely conclude that it isn't a legally-recognized settlement.

Now we ask whether it's an unrecognized settlement that still meets GEOLAND, which I do not believe it is. On Google Maps, you can see that the coordinates for Chhaoni in Nagpur district refer you to Chhaoni Road. By clicking nearby shops you can see that the format of Indian mailing addresses frequently include nearby roads, such as "Shop no. G2&G3 Shanti enclave 749/750 Koradi road, Chhaoni Rd, Nagpur, Maharashtra 440001, India", for a location near the intersection of Chhaoni and Koradi Roads. Clearly, a word appearing in an address does not indicate that it is a settlement, but merely a direction for the postal service.

At best, Chhaoni is a non-notable informal designation for an area inside the larger neighborhood of Rajnagar or New Colony (depending on what side of Chhaoni Road you're on), which are themselves non-notable unofficial neighborhoods of Nagpur. It's not worth a redirect to Nagur, because it would be totally undue to mention it there, and neither Rajnagar or New Colony have articles. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:47, 2 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 00:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dakota Four[edit]

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

None of the sources cited in the article even use the term "The Dakota Four" much less verify that it is a notable entity. Newspapers.com and Google searches don't turn up anything reliable either. The subject of this article appears to be some combination of original research, undue synthesis, and user creation. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 2 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 00:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramin Namdar (composer)[edit]

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

Deleted multiple times under other names, including Ramin Namdar, which is now salted. Allegedly involved heavily in John Wick: Chapter 2, John Wick, The Fate of the Furious and The Unknown Girl but I can't find any WP:RS to support this and attempts by the editor to change those articles have been reverted as unsourced and inappropriate.

In addition, searches of "Ramin Namdar", "Ramin Eghtedari" and "رامین نامدار‎," return zero valid sources. None of the references used in this article are acceptable either. User:Adolphus79 added a PROD rationale Does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NACTOR... which appears to be correct, although it was added while the article was in Wikipedia space at Wikipedia:Ramin Namdar, which made it ineligible for PROD deletion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:29, 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) 20:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:32, 5 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 00:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erlend Sørhøy[edit]

Erlend Sørhøy (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 consisting of 22 minutes. I know that the appearances weren't that long ago, and that his career is ongoing, but that is on the fourth tier in Norway, a full three tiers below professionalism. Most of his career years were spent on the fourth tier, so there is nothing remote to meeting any guideline, except for those 22 minutes. Geschichte (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:33, 2 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. There is consensus not to delete this entirely, and there is also consensus not to merge this to Tall el-Hammam. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Southwest University[edit]

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

Neither WP:ORG nor WP:GNG seem satisfied by our sourcing here as required by WP:NSCHOOLS. jps (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, Google urls are hard to get right. You need the search 'inpublisher:"TSU Press"' at Google Books (including the double quotes). Maybe this works: [1]. I see about 30 books published by TSU Press. You can also search for "TSU Press" at amazon.com for a similar result. Zerotalk 08:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Publishers of 30 books are not usually considered notable just for having published 30 books. We need reliable sources that identify the publisher as notable. jps (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bite. What reliable source do you see that describes this institution? Just because an article mentions an institution does not mean it is a usable source to write about the institution. jps (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't here to coddle the feelings of religious people. If they cannot produce reliable sources or if reliable sources are not produced about them, Wikipedia should not have articles about them. That may feel unfair, but there is really no other option. Religious articles need to meet the same standards as all other articles we have. jps (talk) 12:43, 12 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. It fits "web content" of A7 close enough, it being from an online game. One sentence about a car in GTA has no claim to notability whatsoever. Geschichte (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BF Weevil[edit]

BF Weevil (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 indication of notability, no sources cited. PROD'd the article as part of New Page Patrol but creator contested PROD without any explanation so now bringing this to AFD. DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:15, 2 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 00:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agustin Corpus[edit]

Agustin Corpus (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:NBOX and WP:GNG as a non-notable boxer who has only won a state-wide title. JTtheOG (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments that the sourcing is poor have remained unrebutted. Sandstein 19:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Aanand[edit]

Karan Aanand (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 lead roles to qualify for WP:NACTOR and not enough coverage for WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edisoft[edit]

Edisoft (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:NCORP Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A WP:VAGUEWAVE is not convincing enough for this to even be soft-deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:07, 2 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. The one editor who supported deletion effectively changed their mind (without specifically striking their !vote) leaving consensus among remaining contributors that this subject meets notability criteria (non-admin closure). St★lwart111 23:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kirpili, Turkmenistan[edit]

Kirpili, Turkmenistan (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 citations are bogus and the place itself isn't notable. Qwerfjkltalk 14:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:01, 2 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 00:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collective Frames[edit]

Collective Frames (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 by blocked sockpuppet. BOVINEBOY2008 18:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi RandomEditorAAA, you say above that "most sources direct to the films and not the company" - NCORP requires references that discuss the company. Can you take another look and perhaps revise your !vote? HighKing++ 15:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further thinking, I agree that the article should be deleted as it fails NCORP. Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 01:02, 9 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 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Mitchell[edit]

Kathleen Mitchell (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 article has been around for five years but only has one source which is about her daughter who is also an actress. I can't find any significant discussion of her (there are articles about other Kathleen Mitchells who are also actors). ... discospinster talk 17:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 17:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 17:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding anything about her when I search up her name, or "Kathleen Mitchell actress" and similar search terms. Just her IMDB profile and mirror sites of this article. I wonder if Dick Thies should also be deleted too, however I didn't do much searching about him. Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 02:17, 3 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 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Columbians Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

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

PRODded by Acroterion, for all the right reasons: "Non-notable organization, no evidence of success in national competition". PROD was removed by User:Why? I Ask without any explanation. Its content is sourced only to the national organization and to itself, and is just full of trivia--please see this, for instance. In addition, this smacks of COI editing--and note the ubiquity in these articles of a DCI external link, also inappropriate. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 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) 20:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:21, 2 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 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Shofe[edit]

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

Most sources are not independent or primary. Just some passing mentions in some reliable sources like [3], which is not enough to pass WP:GNG. MarioGom (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 2 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. Randykitty (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harbour Plaza[edit]

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

Building is not notable. While tall, it is not notable in a city with many tall buildings. Not discussed in any major way for its architecture or any notable characteristic. Does not pass WP:NBUILD Alaney2k (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Alaney2k's comments. This fails WP:NBUILDING. After looking through List of tallest buildings in Toronto, buildings such as Commerce Court have received coverage that shows its apparent significance. The sources mentioned do not provide evidence that Harbor Plaza holds a historic, social, economic, or architectural significance. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Keep per NemesisAT. Although the sources do not pass WP:NBUILDING, they do pass WP:GNG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:39, 2 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. This discussion points to a real need for either a subject notability guideline for eSports teams, or an explicit statement that no SNG applies and it's the GNG or bust. Too much of the discussion was taken up arguing over NCORP and NSPORTS to get any real clarity about the quality of sourcing. It would be appropriate to revisit this in a year or so. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart Esports[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Stalwart Esports (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 not so famous eSports team. Just routine coverage. No international or regional ESL participation. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. - Hatchens (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this isn't a company so why on Earth would we apply WP:CORPDEPTH and set an inexplicably higher bar than WP:GNG? Those two sources aren't written by the same people, or even published on the same continent, and they were published more than a month apart. Where is the question of intellectual independence? Multiple people writing about the same thing is exactly what we mean when we talk about significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. St★lwart111 02:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing Admin: Nomadicghumakkad was called in here to make a vote by Hatchens by pinging him on his talk page while i was trying to give him information about ESL and South Asia. My conversation at Hatchens Talk Page. Also considering that this Article was once subjected to AfD and was stormed by a group who wanted to get it deleted, i'm not accusing anyone but there could be possibility of the same group acting again. I'd request Admins to look into their accounts as well because the information they're trying to push into this AfD is incorrect, i've given a brief information of why ESL isn't active in south asia at hatchen's talk page. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 10:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can continue to treat it as such, but we are under no obligation to follow your lead. St★lwart111 11:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a corporation or an organisation. It has no constitution or membership guidelines or process for joining. It's not even a traditional sporting club (which, as a fan, you can become a member of). It's a sports team. The fact that their sport isn't considered a traditional sport does not mean that any kind of organised participation should be disingenuously conflated with the constitution of a formal organisation. St★lwart111 11:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    NORG covers any group of more than one person formed together for a purpose, except small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people) and non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. If a group not covered by the exceptions has another specific notability guideline, it can be presumed notable based on that, without meeting NORG (not a direct quote, but also from NORG). When one concedes that esports team are not a traditional sports team and therefore not covered by NSPORTS, and that there is no specific guideline for esports teams, and that it is not among the exceptions listed, then it's simply logical that it is covered by NORG. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's clearly a sports team. That the NSPORTS crowd doesn't want it, or doesn't know what to do with esports yet, does not make that untrue. There have been recent DRV discussions about whether NCORP should apply to corporations ahead of GNG, given the extent to which that guideline seems to have moved away from community sentiment. There's no justification for applying it here except as a tool for setting an artificially higher inclusion threshold, and the arguments above make that plainly clear. St★lwart111 13:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NSPORTS says there is no community consensus to consider esports a sport (sport is something to which the guideline NSPORTS applies; this is the only definition that's useful here). Even if this AFD did agree it's a sport, there is no corresponding list of criteria at NSPORTS. In absence of alternative specific guidelines for any group of more than one person doing something, NORG applies. The purpose of AFD is to apply existing guidelines and policies as they are, not as one thinks they ought to be. The debates are over interpretation, not merit. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Usedtobecool, you know what's the irony - Stalwart111 forcing us to accept this eSports team as per WP:NSPORTS despite we clearly telling him/her... at this moment eSports are not considered to be part of NSPORTS. On the other hand, at an another AfD he/she doesn't want a football club - Luca Soccer Club to be assessed under WP:NFOOTY because he/she thinks WP:GNG is the appropriate guideline and keep the page. I am done explaining and I surrender. I have not seen such poor interpretation of Wiki guidelines on AfD discussions. - Hatchens (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, my argument there is that WP:GNG should apply because WP:GNG is our baseline notability criteria. My argument is the same here. It doesn't matter if that club doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY, because it already passes WP:GNG. And it doesn't matter if this sporting team isn't considered a sporting team or doesn't pass WP:NCORP, because it already passes WP:GNG. It's pretty simply, really. St★lwart111 00:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page contains only information regarding pubgm and free fire, so this comment should be taken in regard of these games.Aaditya.abh (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aaditya.abh, Hey, i don't think winning any tournament determines notability. But just to answer your question, Stalwart has played all the Pubg Mobile Pro League seasons till date which is a Major PUBG mobile tournament(PP- $200000+) , and has played multiple seasons of Free Fire Indian Championship. Again, even these things don't determine notability on wikipedia. Read WP:GNG. Just helping you out since you're a new esport editor on wikipedia. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 02:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abhayesports I don't believe Pubg mobile pro league is a international tournament. You can say it's a qualifying tournament for international tournament. Secondly, playing any 'major' local tournament, shouldn't be considered note worthy. There are dozens of teams who play various pubgm and free fire tournaments in a year, but I don't think that should make them notable.Aaditya.abh (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aaditya.abh, Oh i see, At the first you say that They haven't played any major tournament hence aren't deemed to be fit on wikipedia later you say playing any major local tournament shouldn't be considered note worthy. You're clearly confused. Also you're actually repeating what i said. Winning or loosing tourneys doesn't make any team notable, They should pass certain parameters on wikipedia to be considered as notable. I'm just assuming good faith here :). Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 02:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abhayesports I don't think you are getting my point. Anyways, I once created a page for S8UL Esports which was deleted because of not passing the notability test. It's afd. The organization is superior in notability to stalwart Esports. The page I created can be still seen HERE. Now if that page was deleted for failing notability, the same arguments can be applied here. Peace ✌️☮️Aaditya.abh (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I believe you are taking this personally because of you having a COI with the topic of the page in question. Aaditya.abh (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aaditya.abh, Hey again, As said i am assuming good faith and just trying to correct your information. Moreover COI is the reason why i haven't made any vote here. But i believe COI can't stop me from defending false information considering that most of the admins might not be well versed with esports and would think that what you've written is correct when it's not. You've posted misleading information above classifying Pro League as a minor event and disregarding FFIC. So i believe it's my duty to raise awareness on the same because a $200k tourney can't be classified as minor. We don't take things personally here, this is a public encyclopaedia and we're all here to contribute. If i wasn't Assuming good faith i'd have dig up that you're doing this just because i commented on your S8UL AfD and disregarded those invalid sources as RS. But i didn't because my sole reason of replying to you was to correct your knowledge on Minor and Major Events in PUBG Mobile. Also just researched another thing, their current PUBG mobile lineup are the former PMPL Champions. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 06:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing break[edit]

  • Reply @Swordman97:, I don’t think participation in a certain tournament makes any team notable(as per my understanding of wikipedia’s guidelines), participation in major’s is a notability criteria for liquipedia but wikipedia follows certain guidelines and as per WP:GNG this subject has several WP:RS which meet the guidelines. Moreover, if all the teams who have participated in major’s are notable to have a page on Wikipedia then there are many esport teams out there who should be on WP, moreover can you kindly share the link to the specific guideline about having participation in a major to be notable for WP, Also, just to answer your query, Stalwart has participated in all the 4 seasons of Pubg Mobile Pro league South Asia, which is a major Pubg Mobile tournament, although I don’t believe it matters but still just answering your query. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 00:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Participation in the highest level of a sport is the easiest way to achieve notability, which in this case would be the continental series or global championshipglobal championship. They have not achieved that yet and they are not an especially winning or notable team so they don't need an article. Swordman97 talk to me 04:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Swordman97: This is not a valid reason for keeping/deleting an article, as any sort of WP:NESPORTS does not exist. Please explain why the sources present in the article do not demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG. — Pbrks (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPORTSCRIT is what I was referencing. In any case I agree with Nomad with their view of the article. The sources are too trivial. Swordman97 talk to me 04:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SPORTSCRIT does not apply to esports articles, as WP:NSPORTS does not in general. I fail to see how the sources are trivial. The Vice, The Esports Observer, and Dot Esports articles contain significant non-trivial coverage of the topic. — Pbrks (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gyan.Know: You may be correct (I haven't checked The Times of Esports) that these are not considered reliable. However, Vice, The Indian Express, The Esports Observer, and Dot Esports are. Please explain why these sources are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. — Pbrks (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Aaditya.abh, who has participated in this discussion previously, changed their username to Gyan.Know. — Pbrks (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pbrks: The sources you mentioned latter are reliable and contribute to page's notability.
But as you can see on the page, some of the information provided is original research and no sources are provided as to that. In short, lack of sources for information on the page. Gyan.Know (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gyan.Know: This isn't how WP:AfD works. In general, if reliable, secondary, independent sources with significant coverage of the topic exist, then the article satisfies WP:GNG. An article may contain original research or some poor sources, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. — Pbrks (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pbrks: The Free Fire section of the page does not cite a single source. And going accordingly to your points, it is okay for that information to be there? Gyan.Know (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not what we are discussing. The main question is whether or not the reliable sources that do exist (see the sources Alyo provided here) demonstrate notability. — Pbrks (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BilledMammal, I'd like to understand your rationale here... are you saying that because the creator might have a COI (which you agree is suggested, but not confirmed) we should apply an irrelevant - but stricter - guideline to ensure it is deleted to protect the project from said suggested COI? St★lwart111 00:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In a way. It is unclear whether the WP:NCORP applies; there are arguments for and against. I probably lean towards the "for" argument, as these teams are for-profit entities that relying on popularity, at least in part, for their revenue.
However, I decided that the situation was sufficiently nebulous that we would be better off considering the spirit of WP:NCORP, not the word, and to do this I thought we should look into the background of the article's creators; did they create it "under a cloud", is it reasonable to expect a COI or UPE to exist. To my surprise, it turned out that such a cloud existed, and thus it seems in line with the spirit of NCORP to apply it, and as there seems to be a consensus that the article should be deleted if NCORP applies, the only reasonable result, in my opinion, is delete. BilledMammal (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the author having a COI wouldn't be a reason for deletion in the first place, so applying an inapplicable guideline just to produce that result doesn't seem appropriate. The author's COI, or potential COI, isn't even something WP:NCORP considers, so it seems particularly bloody-minded to apply that guideline as some kind of strawman. The arguments in favour of deletion want to disingenuously apply WP:NCORP for the same reason; the subject doesn't pass that guideline so if they can argue that guideline should apply, they can have it deleted. "if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid". This fish should not be expected to climb that tree. St★lwart111 00:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who is going to tell Wikipedia:WikiProject India that most of their articles will need to be deleted? These contributions are getting insane, and insanely bad faith. St★lwart111 02:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, amid all of that hand-wringing, confusion, disagreement, escapism, and guideline boundary-setting, we still have WP:GNG, right? Phew. St★lwart111 02:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't actually, because whenever NCORP is applicable it has priority application over GNG (it overrides GNG). NCORP is famous for this. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stalwart111, your sarcastic tone has been duly noted. -Hatchens (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanteloop: It isn't complicated, but it has a certain logic that needs to be followed. It isn't about a wider discussion, just about logic:
  1. NSPORT deals only with things commonly held to be sport, and not with things only sometimes referred to as a sport or things that share some common elements with sport
  2. The community does not hold that esports are sport (there is a lack of consensus on the issue of whether they are or aren't, which has been noted down)
  3. Therefore: NSPORT doesn't apply to esports -- so what does?
  4. Regardless of differences between esports and sport, esports teams, like sports teams, are organizations
  5. NCORP applies to organizations in general (had NSPORT not existed, the applicable guideline for sports teams would have been NCORP)
  6. therefore: it is NCORP that applies to esport teams
  7. this esports team as a subject of encyclopedic coverage doesn't pass NCORP (for obvious reasons)
  8. when NCORP is the controlling norm and subject doesn't pass NCORP, said subject is non-notable, because there is no other way notability can be established or presumed for it (such as GNG, because NCORP, within it's area of application, is applied not in tandem with GNG, but instead of GNG)
  9. therefore: the subject is non-notable
  10. and ultimately: this article (being that it deals with a non-notable subject) should be deleted — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Meets WP:GNG" has one step: "1. Subject meets WP:GNG." Besides which, the WP:NTEAM section of WP:NSPORTS makes it quite clear that NSPORTS doesn't have criteria for teams anyway, and says the fall-back for sports teams and clubs is WP:GNG, not WP:NCORP: "This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline.". Your novel 10-step interpretation isn't supported by that guideline at all. St★lwart111 09:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it's a useful summary of the argument, but I think the situation is genuinely quite murky. WP:NCORP is quite clear that sports teams are not covered: "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams." However, whether esports teams are "sports teams" is the question at issue here! If they aren't sports teams, then they are clearly a "group of people organized together for a purpose" and so are covered by WP:NCORP. If they are sports teams, then they are specifically exempted from WP:NCORP and covered by WP:NSPORTS (which as you point out just defers directly to WP:GNG for sports teams). So Alalch Emis's point (4) is incorrectly stated, and in fact the argument for which notability guideline to apply hinges on whether esports teams are sports teams. Suriname0 (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, we should probably just reflect what reliable sources say about esports I guess: [13], [14], [15]. St★lwart111 04:29, 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. I find a reasonably strong consensus that none of the nominated articles meet WP:NSEASONS, and to delete all, rather than preserve some selectively. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Ohio State Buckeyes men's soccer team[edit]

2019 Ohio State Buckeyes men's soccer team (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 collegiate sport season notability guideline at WP:NSEASONS and does not meet WP:GNG, with note that some WP:ROUTINE articles exist. Consensus exists for deletion under these circumstances, as demonstrated here, here, and here. GauchoDude (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

2014 Dayton Flyers men's soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2019 Cincinnati Bearcats men's soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2019 Michigan State Spartans men's soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2019 Rutgers Scarlet Knights men's soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No unfounded accusations please. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
      • In several of the previous deletion logs, Quidster has made the same arguments that Twwalter has made, and that I have made. I'm assuming it's some fatigue from this debate. Further I think we all remember the 2016 and 2017 season articles that the nominator squarely attacked Quidster, called for him to be banned for making articles about college soccer, and went to the lengths to made sock accounts trying to block him. Cobyan02069 (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Cobyan02069 is a CU-confirmed sock. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment from nom: I do not believe I am acting in bad faith as I have serious reservations about keeping these articles, hence the nomination to delete and subsequent discussion, which seems to be echoed by others posting. I will certainly put my hand up and share that I did the same thing probably ~5 years ago, and likely for the same reasons which I'm sure resulted in many deletions. That shouldn't have any impact on this conversation, especially if the inclusion/exclusion criteria have remained the same. Lastly, I don't recall making any sock accounts or attacking @Quidster4040:, but if I did and that's how it was perceived at the time, then for that I am truly sorry. This is by no means a personal attack on him or any of the other fine content creators that have worked so hard on collegiate soccer nor an indication of their work. Ultimately, it appears there is a misunderstanding as to how we as a group are interpreting inclusion criteria specific to NCAA Division I Men's Soccer season articles and thus a conversation is healthy for everyone to level-set and get on the same page. GauchoDude (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unless there is actual evidence of behavior acting as a sock account and calling for a ban by this user, I request that this comment be stricken. That is a very serious accusation and not one to be made lightly. Jay eyem (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rutgers, Michigan State, and Ohio State easily meet WP:NSEASONS due to these three programs being among college soccer's most elite programs, regardless of the success of their season in 2019. Rutgers played the first documented college soccer match ever. Michigan State has two NCAA titles to their name, and Ohio State has recent success in the College Cup and NCAA Sweet Sixteen. I also ask for a refund of the Penn State article, as Penn State's program easily meets WP:NSEASONS for being an elite program in college soccer. During the early to mid-20th century, Penn State won 14 national soccer championships and has made 34 NCAA tournaments. That level of consistency among non-routine coverage easily merits the WP:GNG guidelines for Penn State. Additionally, the same notion applies for Rutgers, Michigan State, and Ohio State. If that level of achievement is not notable, then we should consider deleting all the articles related to Saint Louis, Virginia, and Indiana in soccer, and might as well delete any articles related to Vanderbilt in baseball, Alabama in football, Duke in basketball, etc.
I will, however (reluctantly) agree with the nominator that Cincinnati's 2019 season should be deleted. The program in its history only made the NCAA Tournament three times, the only significant season articles for Cincy that would meet GNG and NSEASONS would be their 1998, 2003, 2006 teams for making the tournament, and the 1989 team for winning a regular season championship. The same logic I would apply for Dayton's 2014 season. The program has only four seasons in the NCAA Tournament and only three seasons where they didn't make the NCAA Tournament but claimed a conference regular season championship. The only Dayton articles I would say meet GNG and NSEASONS are the 1997, 1998, 2000, 2008, 2009, 2015, and 2020 teams.
Finally, I would like to go on record and agree with @Quidster4040: that the Big Ten team deletions feel like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination, given the history of attempts to delete college soccer articles that meet GNG, such as 2017 VCU Rams men's soccer team (one of the best A10 teams ever), and the 2016 NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship Game. Understandably, such a nomination and an attack on Quidster4040 would leave a sour taste in his mouth anytime anyone suggests deleting college soccer articles. I would also like to note all the delete comments by @GiantSnowman:, @No Great Shaker:, and @Keskkonnakaitse:, as they offer nothing of value other than "no evidence of notability". Only @GauchoDude:, the nominator makes a sound argument to delete the articles, although I disagree with his interpretation with WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Twwalter (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Twwalter is a CU-confirmed sock. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have 2019 NCAA Division I men's soccer season and 2019 Big Ten Conference men's soccer season which provide sufficient coverage of US college football. Notability per WP:NSEASONS does not extend to the individual teams. I would not support any one team season article unless the league is in WP:FPL and, lets face it, these are a long way short of that standard. I could start an article for Bury AFC's record this season (they are tier 10 in England) knowing it wouldn't last two minutes – and that would be absolutely right. But the NWCFL in which Bury play has a much higher standard than a college league in America because, for one thing, the players include many who have been professionals and some have played in the Premier League itself, which means they are rather good. As for IDONTLIKEIT, it seems you two don't like your articles being justifiably raised and criticised at AFD because they don't meet the required standard. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from, but to compare the 10th tier of English football to the top tier of American collegiate soccer (roughly the fourth tier of American soccer), is frankly laughable and almost strikes me as WP:DIDNOTWIN. For the sake of professionals playing in the American collegiate tiers, it is very routine to have players that play on USL academy contracts and play against professionals in the third and second tier of American soccer and then go on to play college soccer, and then subsequently go on to play in MLS, and elsewhere.
The reason I go through the lengths to call these nominations WP:IDONTLIKEIT is because again and again they routinely ignore WP:NSEASONS (and even WP:NSPORTS) as outlined by Twwalter, and regularly ignore non-trivial coverage of these programs. To give one college sport a different set of rules because of a perceived popularity despite coverage that transcends multiple college sports is irresponsible and often comes off as singling out college soccer, which is arguably the second most popular fall college sport, and the third or fourth most popular collegiate sport overall. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Quidster4040 is a CU-confirmed sock. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the comparison between the English 10th tier and American college soccer is erroneous, but I don't see how there is a misinterpretation of WP:NSEASONS here. The reason these seasons are constantly challenged for notability is precisely because they don't have the non-trivial coverage you claim. And NSEASONS is explicit about weigh[ing] both the season itself and the sport i.e. yes, American soccer articles are less likely to be inherently notable so they are held to a slightly higher standard than American football would be. And recall, notability is not inherited, so just because professional players played collegiately does not mean those season articles will be inherently notable. College soccer is not necessarily by any means being singled out, and immediately jumping to accusations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is assuming bad faith in other editors. Jay eyem (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further down in the discussion, BeanieFan11 makes a sound argument about how these programs easily meet NSEASONS. If it came off as me saying college soccer is inherited notability, my apologies. I was simply trying to say in regards to notable footballers playing in American collegiate soccer that it was, as you said, erroneous, to compare it to the 10th tier of English football, it wasn't meant to be an argument of notability but rather an argument of how the comparison is sheer ignorance. But finally, the goalposts oftentimes are moved when it comes to notability of college soccer. Someone makes a nomination, we find sources proving that there is notability. It gets deleted, despite there not being a delete consensus and then animosity forms, and those such actions trigger a sense of deleting not due to notability, but due to not liking the subject matter. Quidster4040 (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC) Quidster4040 is a CU-confirmed sock. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely nothing about that argument is sound. It is based on the assumption that regular routine coverage qualifies any college sports season as notable. That is absolutely not the case and not in line with WP:NSEASONS. And there is extensive consensus that single seasons for individual teams need to make the NCAA Tournament to have that presumption of notability, and even then it still needs to meet GNG. And once again, you need to stop attributing concerns about notability to WP:IDONTLIKEIT or we will need to bring this elsewhere. Jay eyem (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought my argument was pretty sound, I explained why I felt the articles should be either kept, redirected, etc., but I'm failing to see how "absolutely nothing is". Please elaborate... Twwalter (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC) Twwalter is a CU-confirmed sock. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, that comment was not directed towards you, though I would also say the argument you proposed is not sound. I don't think your basis for being an "elite" program is supported by WP:NSEASONS, I don't see how Penn State being a good side in early years gives a presumption under WP:GNG, and I think the comparison to Alabama football and Duke basketball and the line of reasoning to delete them is also not supported by WP:NSEASONS. I think your argument is a valid, but not sound. Jay eyem (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is a disagreement about what one would consider "elite" by the standards of WP:NSEASONS. To me when I read "(the amount written by reliable sources on a weekly basis for some of these programs is enough that almost anything or anyone having any relation to them is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline)", this implies coverage that is well beyond routine. I don't think it is a coincidence that the examples given are football, men's basketball, and women's basketball, because these are the three sports that easily exceed the kind of routine coverage something like college soccer would receive for those given programs. That's also why the guideline says "For college sports teams, weigh both the season itself and the sport (for example, if a US college or university's football and fencing teams enjoy the same level of success, the football team is likely to receive a significantly greater amount of coverage)." I just don't see this kind of coverage for any men's soccer teams, including Indiana who is one of the most successful programs and has far and away the longest streak of consecutively making the tournament. I don't feel I can speak to the proposal for refunding the Penn State article (although I will say I don't think this AFD is the place for it) because that season does go so far back and determining significant coverage for something that far back is not as easy. But by the standards of NSEASONS, I think "elite" status is more than a team being historically good in their given sport; it's also about the amount of coverage that team receives from non-routine sources. This might just be worth taking up at WT:NSPORT, but if the coverage for these seasons is there, I haven't yet found it. Jay eyem (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nom: These are my thoughts exactly. GauchoDude (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rutgers, a search found this, this, this, this, this, this, this and more. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Michigan State, a search found this, this, this, this, this, and more. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Cincinnati, only found this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Dayton, only found this, this, and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also I would support refunding the Penn State team, as they're a major program and a search on newspapers.com for 1913 brings up 2,000+ results. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing: I do not think these group deletion discussions are appropriate, as 1. Each are completely different schools/teams being nominated as a group & 2. It appears few people are doing the simple research that I did to find coverage. See the first 4 delete votes, all of which said something like "Fails NSEASONS and GNG". But it appeared nobody actually searched for the things I found. I also really do not like how GauchoDude a month ago randomly deleted/redirected over 50 soccer seasons to the main article, citing "per NSEASONS". Well, while I can see NSEASONS saying "redirect if no well sourced prose is found", 1. over 10,000 articles (mostly football and basketball) do not follow this, yet still remain, and 2. he still redirected some articles even though they were not just lists of players and statistics. I mean does this look like a list of stats and players??? At least bring it to AFD (individually, I would prefer), rather than delete large amounts of hard work by college soccer users without anyone else knowing. For Penn State, which he redirected around 15 seasons pre-1940 for, a search on newspapers.com of "Penn State soccer" brings up every year between 1,000 and 7,000 results! BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this has been discussed extensively in the past, routine coverage is NOT sufficient for an article. Regular match scores and reports constitute routine coverage, and you can't synthesize as string of routine coverage together and claim notability. And you absolutely cannot claim that these articles meet notability just because other similar articles exist. Many of those articles could also probably be deleted on basis of failing WP:GNG as well, but WP:NSEASONS is the baseline for notability. Can you provide in-depth coverage of the entire season by an independent and reliable source? Because so far you have not provided such. Jay eyem (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How come for college football and basketball, articles exist when they only have routine coverage, but its not the case for soccer? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I literally already directed you to WP:OSE, that's a facile argument for keeping an article. That being said, WP:NSEASONS is explicit about balancing the sport and the season. Football and basketball articles receive far more significant and in-depth coverage, so they are more likely to be notable. Jay eyem (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most were redirects at some point but got reverted, hence AfD. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD nomination calls for delete not redirect. Though the lack of homogeneity in these articles' notability suggest a procedural keep without prejudice would be in order. Nfitz (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no issues with redirecting these, but these are textbook examples of seasons that have been deleted for a lack of notability and failing SNGs in the past. I still don't see what sets the Big 10 teams apart from the other two. None of them reasonably match the definition of "elite" under NSEASONS and none of the sources provided for them go beyond routine coverage. Additionally, about 50 or so other season articles that similarly meet this criteria were restored by BeanieFan11 on October 6 and 7 without any consensus being determined first and against prior consensus. I would REALLY rather not have to have these nominated individually; WP:NSEASONS exists for a reason. Jay eyem (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to African-American hair. Or Afro-textured hair; consensus is that this topic should be covered, but as part of an existing article. Sandstein 18:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good hair[edit]

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

Any positive aspects to this article could/should just be put in hair. Matt Deres (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Good hair" is by no means specific to the African American community. It is used across cultures and races. To differentiate "good hair" from "nice hair" is an arbitrary constriction you are personally placing upon the term. If you want to discuss the idiom "good hair" within the African American community, it ought to be a subcategory in an article about human perceptions of good hair. This article is ill-sourced, biased, scattered, arbitrary, and needs to be rewritten in order to meet the standards of Wikipedia. I support deletion of the page if this article in its current haphazard construction is the only alternative, and any attempts at editing and/or streamlining are unilaterally hamstrung by MrOllie. -MKultra1234
MKultra1234, were you the IP editor who changed the topic of this article earlier today? - MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is opinion and therefor sure to change. Nice hair in the 70s in the African-American community for instance. Lightburst (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is specifically about a bias toward straight hair over Afro-textured hair, and it hasn't really varied over time like hairstyles (so far, anyway). It's the hair version of discrimination over skin tone. Please take a look at some of the sources I linked. - MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 2 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. Mackensen (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Bruckbauer[edit]

Brian Bruckbauer (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 think we no longer assume that a Brigadier General is automatically or even presumably notable -- and there is nothing in this bio to suggest that he might be. DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Mztourist (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Er, in the article... where else? (And you're not doing that badgering thing again, are you? Just let people !vote how they want without you trying to argue them into changing their minds). - wolf 16:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page has 8 references, 5 of which relate to his involvement with a deal in India and 1 is a US Army bio, so I'm asking you how you see the sources as satisfying notability. Mztourist (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You already wrote that, and you can agf that I read it. How reading what I wrote, and leaving it at that... - wolf 18:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
that's just the point---in the past we have presumed notability for anyone who's a brigadier general, so not much in the way of specific sourcing was required. The standard has I think finally changed.Most of the sourcing is mere notices--none of it is substantial , except his official record. DGG ( talk ) 07:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we please keep views of fellow editors out of the debate? If you have a problem with someone else, please take it to WP:ANI.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • seems to be a deadlink with no archived copy Avilich (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • already cited in the article Avilich (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If this subject passes GNG; then it should be easy to provide a list of acceptable sources (Template:source assess might be useful); instead of having unconvincing assertions not backed by evidence or Wikipedia policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Calling 2 sources a "notebomb" seems like a pretty creative interpretation of what that essay says. Regarding content, I am not interested in devoting several hours to expanding this stub, so no, I didn't add any, nor did I claim to have (in fact, I left a comment rather than !voting because the article is not that interesting to me). jp×g 22:29, 7 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 00:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Donovan[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. The sources offered do not have significant coverage of this person themselves; some of them are his works of journalism, or comments by him, which do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument merely suggests that the article should be expanded upon, which could be done if those with vested interests left the article alone. I should note that those with vendettas against Independent Media (let's be honest, that's exactly what this is, as we never see debates about deleting pages of journalists from mainstream media) have already removed a section of the article, without cause that included additional sources.

The notion that a journalist who is the founder and publisher of an online news publication website should not have a Wikipedia article is ridiculous. As founder of Independent Australia, Donovan is far more notable than your average Australian journalist (many whom feature on Wikipedia). Donovan also has 36k followers on Twitter, which is a clear example of notability given that Twitter is an unofficial engagement and distribution platform for Australian journalism.

The changing news/media landscape in Australia is seeing many turn away from mainstream media to independent media and as a popular independent online media source, Independent Australia itself is noteworthy and therefore its founder and publisher, with a significant online following must also be notable.

It would be a real shame for Wikipedia to bury its head in the sand and discrimiante against journalists purely because they don't serve a mega media overlord.

The sources are also independent from Donovan and come from credible media such as the ABC, SMH and Courier Mail, there is also references to publications, some which I believe are peer-reviewed.

The fact that this article is not an example of a good article, does not mean that the subject is not noteworthy, which seems to be the basis for the above argument. People who AREN'T noteworthy aren't publishers of online news and they don't have 36k followers on social media. Simba1409 (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Social media followers are not part of the notability criteria. People can have five billion followers and not merit an article, and can have five followers and merit one. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you have independent reliable sources that discuss Mr. Donovan in depth, please offer them and/or put them in the article. This has nothing to do with an anti-independent media effort, of which I am certainly not a part. And given the internet, anyone on Earth can publish news as they see it, it doesn't make them notable. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then Wikipedia is stuck in the dark ages, a social media following IS DIRECTLY related to the notability of a journalist.
Your argument for 'anyone can publish news' is misinformed. Creating a news publication website takes time, effort and money.
I mentioned the changing landscape of media in Australia, which Donovan is part of via IA. This is important in terms of notability.
You claim not to be against independent media but I don't see you trying to take down pages of other journalists working for mainstream media. Simba1409 (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add social media followers to the notability criteria, you are free to work to do that. I would oppose doing so, for various reasons, including the fact that it is easily gamed and also that many people click to follow someone and never go there again.
As a volunteer, no, I don't have time to go on a crusade against journalist articles among the six million plus articles here- I deal with what is in front of me, and consider each on their own merits. You too are free to do so and nominate articles for deletion- it's likely that you are correct and that there are other articles on journalists that are inappropriate. See other stuff exists. Whether its "independent media" or a corporation is not relevant to me. We're not here to promote one at the expense of the other or vice versa0- just to summarize independent reliable sources.
I could get space on a host and create a website to publish news on in five minutes if I was so motivated.
You mention a "changing landscape" but do not describe articles independent of Mr. Donovan that discuss how he was involved with it. The article currently just tells what he has done, not why it is important or its impact. If you think it does, we will just have to disagree on that. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are displaying your lack of social media and general internet knowledge.
Social media as criteria could clearly also use statistics on engagement and interactions to determine whether one's following has been gamed or if their following legitimately reflects their notability.
Yes, anyone can create a website - but that doesn't mean it will be seen. Donovan's news publication website is visited daily by subscribers and news readers because of HIS NOTABILITY, it is also a member of the Australian Press Council, which you can't just do 'in five minutes'. You could create a website for news now, but no one would see it, no one would know it exists. To run a popular news website against the concentration of mainstream media is clearly notable. Simba1409 (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We'll just have to disagree about the impact of social media follower numbers. As I said, you are free to work to add that to the notability criteria(others have tried and failed, but maybe you will break through). 331dot (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sydney Herald pieces have quotes from him, but little else about his importance. Quotes are a primary source. I cannot examine The Australian pieces due to a paywall. The Guardian piece just describes his challenging of a politician, which is standard work for a journalist. The Crikey source is an interview with him, another primary source. I can only see the beginning of The Times piece and it seems to be discussing republicanism in Australia. 331dot (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the views on the notability of an Australian journalist, from someone who does not live in Australia, should be disregarded. I'm sure many people overseas don't know who our Prime Minister is either. Notability is surely relative to where one lives?
For someone not in Australia to say "I haven't heard of them" doesn't hold much sway for me.
One of those Australian articles is written solely on Donovan's work, an attack article on Donovan essentially, for a mainstream media source to write an article criticising an independent journalist is surely an example of notability, if he wasn't notable, they wouldn't bother.
One of the SMH articles is about his work and investigations as is the Guardian article, to dismiss this from notability seems incredibly biased.
There is also no dispute/claim against the other published journal references.
I'm sure there are more secondary sources out there, I'll see what I can find. Simba1409 (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a slur and clearly, a personal attack that suggests a personal issue with the subject and this SkyRing's views should be removed from consideration.

Independent Australia is NOT an opinion blog, it is a member of the Australian Press Council and they do publish news, along with anyalyis and opinion like every other news publisher. If SkyRing wants to make a case for deletion, they should do so without resorting to lies.

The sockpuppet investigation against me will come to nothing. Simba1409 (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The timing of your return & your choice of attempting to save this bio article. Quite amazing. GoodDay (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The gatekeeper cult mentality of who can and can't do what on Wikipedia is disgusting. I was browsing Wikipedia, saw an article up for deletion that I disagreed with and took action. Get over it. --Simba1409 (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you (at least) re-learn to indent properly? PS- You're not fooling anybody, so you get over it. GoodDay (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you limit your comments to the notability/deletion discussion? Rather than making false accusations with no evidence. --Simba1409 (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The same could go for you, please. 331dot (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, I've only responded to the accusations made against me and the rest of my comments bar the one above have been related to the notability discussion.--Simba1409 (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You, Simba1409, are the one saying who can and can't do what on Wikipedia, with your racist statement, "the views on the notability of an Australian journalist, from someone who does not live in Australia, should be disregarded." Phil Bridger (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous, my claim is that notability is relative. I wouldn't be arguing "I've never heard of _______" if they were a journalist in another country, the fact that I don't live in that country greatly reduces my chances of having heard of them. Nothing to do with race, simple common sense. Simba1409 (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, it would be a rare Australian who has heard of David Donovan. Could you just run us through the exact process where after ten years of never touching Wikipedia, never logging in, you suddenly go full-tilt into defending this guy? Did someone tell you about it? You seem to have a remarkable knowledge for someone coming in cold. And what's your stance on the football naming RFC? That's something we could work together on if this account survives the sock investigation. @HiLo48:. --Pete (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only person who said, "I've never heard of him", was User:Rhododendrites, and that was not as part of an argument for deletion. I am perfectly capable of judging the notability of subjects in Australia, the US, the Philippines etc. even though I don't live in any of those countries (places that don't use English much are more of a problem, but I can make sense of most Germanic, Slavic and Romance languages), as notability depends on what is written about subjects in reliable sources rather than personal knowledge. We shouldn't put up with racist comments that only people who live in a particular country can determine notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with an argument being made from anywhere in the world on the sources/references, as I stated for someone outside of Australia to say 'I haven't heard of him' isn't relevant. I haven't heard of many journos outside of Australia and this would be the case for the majority of people in the world. I never said that only people in Australia can weigh in or make an argument based on the sources, you are twisting what I said.Simba1409 (talk) 10:21, 4 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 13:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topsite Templating System[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, and the subject of the article hasn't been updated in over 7 years. (Although its creator would have fallen under COI rules today, they didn't exist in 2005). ― novov  t c 11:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ― novov  t c 11:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ― novov  t c 11:09, 2 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 snow keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Farinaz Koushanfar[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTRESUME, article seems to consist solely of vanity links with only an "Honours" and "Resources" section linking to said honors. Transfo47 (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is the article promotional in any way? It sounds like you've never even seen a wiki article on an academic before let alone read the relevant guidelines...which is kind of a problem if you're trying to nominate an academic bio for deletion! JoelleJay (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 4 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 13:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Fleming (racing driver)[edit]

Rob Fleming (racing driver) (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 WP:NMOTORSPORT. No sources that I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corneille de Schonamille[edit]

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

Being the son-in-law of a Governor-General doesn't give a person notability. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:37, 2 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 13:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chilamkurthi Veeraswamy[edit]

Chilamkurthi Veeraswamy (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 closest he comes to notability is being the runner-up in an election. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Badie[edit]

Abbas Badie (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:NFOOTY as he has not played in a fully-pro league or for a senior national team. Fails WP:GNG as coverage is routine (match line-ups, mention of scoring a goal, U23 call-up, contract renewal...) Nehme1499 09:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 09:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 09:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 09:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme1499 09:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zion Clark[edit]

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

utterly trivial. This belongs in Guiness, not an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 09:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Alexander (architect)[edit]

William Alexander (architect) (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 see no evidence of notability except listing in a directory, nor does his work seem of particular importance. DGG ( talk ) 09:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the bio in a directory does not count toards notability - espcially when it demonstrates that he did not build anything notable . DGG ( talk ) 08:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why it shouldn't, and there are four buildings listed in the article that are "notable" by our own standards! NemesisAT (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 2 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. Nominator is a blocked sock, no other "delete" opinions. Sandstein 20:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maxence Larrieu[edit]

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

Zero sources Dollyplay (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dollyplay (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 2 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 short stories by Alice Munro#No Love Lost (2003). General consensus that this collection has not received sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Love Lost (book)[edit]

No Love Lost (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short story collection, tagged with unrefenced for 10+ years and notability for over half a year. I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirementnor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) supplement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." There is no evidence this collection generated any coverage (no awards, reviews, etc.). It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with boilerplate edit summary that did nothing to resolve problems this article has. At best, I think this could be redirected to the author, Alice Munro. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions, but since the prod was challenged, we now need to go through a full AfD set of motions... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:32, 2 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 that the article now meets WP:MUSICBIO following recent expansion. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McAnally[edit]

Robert McAnally (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 articles sources are not reliable, doesn't meet with WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!【Click to Discuss】 05:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!【Click to Discuss】 05:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Shah Mir. Sandstein 20:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waqur Shah of Kashmir[edit]

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

Single source with a bare mention of the person. I don't think he passes WP:GNG -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kovalam Football Club[edit]

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

Fails NFOOTY. Havent participated at professional level. Sources gives only routine coverages. Fails GNG too Indianfootball98 (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Indianfootball98 (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Indianfootball98 (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:18, 2 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. Discounting obvious SPA votes, there is a clear consensus for deletion. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 12:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adem Yetim[edit]

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

Previously speedied. Speedied again after recreation, unregistered editors removed tags. No evidence of GNG from reliable sources, and no actual reliable sources at all. Appears to be promotional editing, likely from paid editors. JamesG5 (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. GNG can only be met by having sources independent of the subject which none of these keep votes demonstrate. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tuxtion That article is something he wrote, and not even about him. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 09:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~StyyxTalk? ^-^ that article is something he wrote, and not even about him. I agree with you, the Mentorshp article on BCS[1] is written by the person himself, Adem Yetim, but his articles are published in an academic journal by an institution that provides independent academic accreditation to important universities. Also, as a Fellow of BCS, Yetim should be included in the BCS current fellow list that already exists on Wikipedia. The purpose of writing the article is to add details regarding the Fellow with relevant references, otherwise the Wikipedia list is incomplete and missing details. Creating an entry for this person is an update to the existing Wikipedia BCS Fellow list. Deleting the person from the list will misinform people. My opinion is that we look at the relevant page from this perspective, this was the main reason for me to create the page. It is not intended to promote Yetim, but rather to add missing information.Tuxtion (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are only allowed to vote once. I have struck your duplicate vote again. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would also note there seem to be no significant keep votes for this article, just SPA accounts and series of SPA IPs with the same geographic location. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DZMD-FM (Bataan)[edit]

DZMD-FM (Bataan) (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 subject was also nominated for deletion last January 2, 2019 but with a different name (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DZMD). The subject has also its duplicate draft (see Draft:DZMD and Draft:DZMD-FM (Bataan)). SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:52, 02 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:04, 02 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:04, 02 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:24, 02 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. Mackensen (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George L. Knox II[edit]

George L. Knox II (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:BASIC. Another non-notable Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User (indeffed for copyvio) and dePRODed. Source 1) is wartime propaganda and just a photo and 2 sentences. 2) is CAF a user contribution site. 3) is a Tuskegee Airmen chapter so not independent. 4) is clearly not reliable. 5) an interview with his son so not independent and there's no RS that he was involved in court martials arising from the Freeman Field mutiny. A Google search turn up nothing of substance. None of the sources address the subject directly and in detail. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here, just belonging to a notable unit/organization or having a notable son does not confer notability on all its members. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you aren't prepared to comment on the sources, how can you assert that BASIC is satisfied and that he is notable? My comment on the creator is perfectly valid background, I have spent the last 2+ days cleaning up pages he created and keep finding more copyvios. Mztourist (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst Where did I claim that the Tuskegee Airmen as a group are not notable? The User who created this page created 66 poorly-sourced and written pages about Tuskegee Airmen. I have spent the last 3-4 days cleaning them all up and AFDing those that fail WP:BASIC. 15 pages have been deleted, 5 are at AFD and another 1-2 will be put up for AFD, a lot, but not "any article started by the editor who started this article". Just being an Airmen or the fact that the Airmen as a group were awarded the Congressional Gold Medal doesn't make them all notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. Did you actually read the source analysis I provided and do your own BEFORE search about him and not just the Airmen as a group? Mztourist (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCLEANUP we have surmountable problems here. A Tuskegee Airman who broke the color barrier is an easy pass of WP:ANYBIO The Congressional Gold Medal alone is proof of what the country believes about the contributions. Lightburst (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only CLEANUP is me fixing some poorly sourced and written pages and AFDing those that don't meet BASIC. You are still making an INHERITED argument, all Tuskegee Aimen broke the color barrier and the group was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, but that doesn't mean that each of the 1007 Airmen is individually notable. Which of the 3 criteria of ANYBIO do you think he meets? Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We should also explore his role in presiding over the Freeman Field Mutiny court martial. Lightburst (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did and couldn't find anything to support his claimed involvement. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meets WP:ANYBIO number 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field; Which is what the Congressional Gold Medal was about. Lightburst (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You try to have it all ways! No he did not individually make a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, so he fails #2 of ANYBIO and the Congressional Gold Medal was not an individual award so #1 of ANYBIO is not satisfied. Mztourist (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We already know your opinion...you are the nominator. No need to attack any Keep ivote or rational. We already know you based much of this rationale on an essay and the fact that the original author was indeffed for copyvio. I was replying to Peacemaker67 and I am sure that they can respond or read/dismiss and move on. I am sure a WP:CONSENSUS will be reached. Lightburst (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you keep making the same incorrect assertions about the Congressional Gold Medal and ANYBIO I am compelled to respond to them. Mztourist (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are not compelled. The reasons for this Afd are deficient. Your rational is an essay and your remarks about the indeffed author. But my rationale is that WP:ANYBIO is a notability Guideline. The definition of a guideline is this: information intended to advise people on how something should be done or what something should be: I interpret that guideline in a way that does not favor deletion. Lightburst (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have different opinions on notability but your assertions regarding the Congressional Gold Medal and ANYBIO are simply incorrect, I am not the only User who has pointed this out to you. Mztourist (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop focussing on the very prestigious medal (it is just one component which shows what our nation thinks about these heroes) and instead focus on notability. I just added a source to show that Knox was one of ten officers who presided over the very historic Freeman Field Mutiny court-martial. Our guideline is about interpretation ...and I have to overcome your WP:ADHOM attack in the deletion rationale. Lightburst (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop asserting that a unit award of the Congressional Gold Medal satisfies #1 of ANYBIO and instead focus on the sources. Please explain how you have had "to overcome [my] WP:ADHOM attack in the deletion rationale." One of 10 officers presiding over the Freeman Field Mutiny court-martial, truly historic...Mztourist (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Meets WP:ANYBIO number 2"? By that broad logic couldn't we argue basically any WWII vet passes muster? -Indy beetle (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field;" OK, I'll bite, Lightburst. What "widely recognized contribution" did George L. Knox II personally make to the "enduring historical record" regarding the "Tuskegee airmen" (which is presumably what you are arguing...)? He was one of 100 airmen, his contribution is around a tenth of one percent (1 out of 994 airmen) of the total contribution of the Tuskegee airmen (assuming he actually saw combat), and there isn't even any mention in the article of whether he flew combat missions or not, whether he shot down any enemy aircraft etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67Thank you for the message. Please check out the article again. I have added a few important facts about his involvement. One fact that I uncovered is that he was the president of the court at the Freeman Field Mutiny court martials. Regarding combat, or kills - very few Tuskegee Airmen were in that position. Because of the color barrier in the military the Tuskegee airmen were relegated to escort duty. Dangerous but not glorious. Lightburst (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As User:Avilich has already noted below, he was not "the president of the court at the Freeman Field Mutiny court martials" he was one of 10 presiding officers over a court martial that was concluded immediately resulting in one minor conviction that was overturned. None of that, his non-existent combat record, nor being a member of the airmen, alone or combined satisfies #2 of ANYBIO. Mztourist (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mztourist Please read the notes - He was named president after Benjamin O. Davis was removed for cause. New information was found since User:Avilich commented. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not clear, what "widely recognized contribution" are you claiming this fellow made? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst if the only source is a photo caption that just reinforces the non-notability. Mztourist (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So apparently he was one of many presiding officers and the trial was concluded immediately. And there's that CAF source again... Avilich (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Avilich Made some improvements after finding a few sources - he made the news after he died of an accidental gunshot at his home in 1964. Not sure what happened there. Also after Benjamin O. Davis was removed as president during the court-martials - Knox II was named president. I have a source from the Bureau of public relations, war department July 2, 1945..but it is a clipping, so I need to do further research. I have his awards and obituary. Will continue... Lightburst (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Squadron command isn't any different from company command. I don't see this is being especially notable. Intothatdarkness 19:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the delete arguments come before the article was apparently expanded, and it would thus seem to me that a more thorough discussion of the improved article and its sources is warranted at this stage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Avilich In addition to being a Tuskegee Airman with multiple awards, he was president of the court at an historic court-martial. The article has great WP:RS and it is encyclopedic. I did think about pinging you - but I noticed that you do not change your position even in the face of overwhelming evidence. See Mac Ross's AfD to fact check me. You remained a delete, and you fought any talk of subject's notability and ignored the article's massive expansion. So I am not surprised that you reiterate your delete position. Lightburst (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would dispute this article having great RS. Mac Ross did (finally, and in my opinion barely), but this article is still relying heavily on a presumption of inherited notability (his father), CAF stuff (and not even a full article there...just the roster that isn't sourced to any degree), and namechecks. One of the sources is concerned only with the aircraft markings, and directs to a personal website. As for multiple awards...no. Those are service awards (with the exception of the Gold Medal)...the equivalent of participation trophies. And at least three of the sources deal with either aircraft markings or Knox's father, and the Black Knights source is a namecheck of Knox with no significant details other than his name and the fact that he was on the court-martial board. It relies heavily on his obituary and not much else. Intothatdarkness 23:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment obviously refers to the current state of the article, after your not-so-massive expansion, not to its pre-nom version. Read it again. My assessment of the sources is the same as Intothedarkness's: only the obituary is even remotely adequate.

    I must've missed the Mac Ross nomination since the relist and close wasn't synced to this one, and I haven't been following every single discussion too closely these past few days. Assuming that sources were actually found and that the discussion was not simply closed due to pile-on voting by Article Canvassing Squadron, there's nothing out of the ordinary here, just AfD functioning as it should. Anyway, I did not renew my position there as I did here, and the closer was free to ignore my original 'delete' vote because of that. This he rightly did--I don't dispute the fairness of the 'keep' result, since that was mostly uncontested, so your comparison with the Ross AfD to emphasize my supposed intransigence is invalid. Avilich (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • All these points have already been refuted. As stated above, the only reasonably adequate source available (so far) is his obituary, and even that isn't impressive. There is no indication anywhere that he had a 'major role' in anything, and there's no coverage whatsoever on his role in the trial, just a list of multiple presiding officers among which his name just so happens to feature. The awards don't translate into notability either: as Intothatdarkness has stated above, most of them are participation trophies. 2 million people were awarded the American Defense Service Medal--are they all notable? Avilich (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those arguments under ANYBIO have been refuted repeatedly. There aren't sufficient reliable sources to establish his personal notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then we disagree as to the adequacy of that refutation because I still find them perfectly reasonable grounds on which to support retention and nobody has come close to properly explaining why we should ignore guidelines and apply a novel interpretation in this instance. St★lwart111 04:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC is not a novel interpretation, however claiming that a unit award satisfies #1 of ANYBIO for an individual and that just being a Tuskegee Airman satisfies #2 are indeed novel interpretations that have been refuted.Mztourist (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not very well. St★lwart111 07:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You neglected to mention that part of the enduring historical record thing, as well as that footnote conveniently explaining what that means. It's in the very same guideline, you had it right before your eyes. Graduating, serving in the military, having your unit number made public, marrying and dying does not make one 'part of the historical record' by the guideline definition (neither does 'fighting for your country' or 'breaking barriers', btw). Avilich (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Motivation - the key to mentoring | BCS".
  2. ^ "Rites Held". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1964-11-28. p. 5.
  3. ^ "'Skegee Instructor Is Accident Victim". The Mobile Beacon and Alabama Citizen. Mobile, Alabama. 1964-11-14. p. 1.
  4. ^ "Col. George Knox Dies In Alabama". The Indianapolis News. Indianapolis, Indiana. 1964-11-05. p. 26.
  5. ^ "Acceptance by Regular Army Rates Them Among Best in Nation". California Eagle. Los Angeles, California. 1946-09-19. p. 9.
  6. ^ "Fine Bomber Pilot $150". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1945-07-14. p. 4.
  7. ^ "Bombardment Squadron Has Superior Record". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1944-08-12. p. 2.
  8. ^ "Returns for Visit". The Indianapolis News. Indianapolis, Indiana. 1943-07-10. p. 18.
  9. ^ "George L. Knox". The Indianapolis News. Indianapolis, Indiana. 1942-12-26. p. 15.
  10. ^ "Monster Meeting Series To Start". The Indianapolis News. Indianapolis, Indiana. 1942-11-14. p. 18.
  11. ^ "Brown Fighters Will Keep Colors Flying For U.S.A." The Detroit Tribune. Detroit, Michigan. 1942-07-04. p. 17.
  12. ^ "Third Class of Army Cadets Takes To Air". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1942-05-30. p. 1.
  13. ^ "Tuskegee Flying School Graduates Another Class of Negro Pilots". Southeast Air Corps Training Center News. Montgomery, Alabama. 1942-05-30. p. 3.
  14. ^ "Army Offers Four-State Area 325 Cadet Pilot Scholarships a Month". The Indianapolis Star. Indianapolis, Indiana. 1941-10-19. p. 16.
I don't know what you mean by "passing mention" here, because three of the articles are entirely (and exclusively) about Knox. I am not saying that all thirteen of them are WP:SIGCOV; I'm saying that enough of them are to imply notability, and that the article (which was suggested for deletion largely due to a lack of sourcing) now has sources to support its claims. The specific text being supported by reference #7 (which is also supported by another reference in the article) is that he wass assigned to Selfridge Field in Michigan (which is, indeed, right there in the clipping). I am not sure what your objection to this is; text in Wikipedia articles is generally supposed to be cited to a source. If your claim is that the Indianapolis News is not a reliable source, you can always go to WP:RSN; otherwise, I am confused. jp×g 08:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mention means his name is mentioned with no real detail. Which 3 of the 13 you have added are you referring to that are entirely and exclusively about him? The reports of his death? In relation to 7. we know he was at Oscoda Air Base/Selfridge Field, we don't need a trivial mention to support that when we have an RS. Your additions also ignore Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and introduced repetition of awards that I have deleted. Mztourist (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason to discuss this here instead of the article's talk page? jp×g 22:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your Refbombing to save the page and adding detail in the lede that doesn't belong there, that's what's being discussed here. Mztourist (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't think we are going to come to an agreement on this; feel free to ping me on the talk page if you've got concerns about the formatting of the article. jp×g 11:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of these miserably fail WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE ("Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article"). This is just more of the usual low-effort fluff by editors who find someone's name mentioned somewhere and think they made a day. Ref. 6 talks about the entire squadron, not Knox, his name is mentioned only among his colleagues without any commentary on him specifically. Avilich (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's little more than the usual ROUTINE/NOTNEWS stuff that this article was created with in the beginning, which Mztourist and other editors have repeatedly outlined in detail above. Evidence that he as an individual did something particularly outstanding, or substantial biographical prose in a way that would satisfy ANYBIO, is still lacking. Avilich (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know that I'd consider this to be significant improvement. The sourcing is still weak, and quite a bit is still tied to either his father or his unit, which doesn't speak to the notability of the individual. Intothatdarkness 15:32, 12 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 by nom. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daiki Yamagiwa[edit]

Daiki Yamagiwa (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:NRU. While he has played in Japan, there is no information indicating that he's played for the national team. The only reference on the page is (as of this moment) doesn't link me to a player-specific page. The external link is broken. He simply does not seem like a notable person, and he does not appear to pass the general notability guideline. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, there's a source from his Japanese Wiki page which is a GNG pass that Jumpytoo has added, and a more thorough search through Japanese media would likely find more. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:19, 3 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. My sense of the discussion is that this topic can possibly be covered reliably, but that the Himal Southasian source isn't a sufficient basis. Mackensen (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ragusan trade with India[edit]

Ragusan trade with India (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:GNG is not met. Ample pseudohistory - see this book. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-English sources are not forbidden or even, discouraged. That being said, consult footnote 329 at Lach, Donald F.; Kley, Edwin J. Van (1993). "Empire and Trade". Asia in the Making of Europe. Vol. III: A Century of Advance - Book 1: Trade, Missions, Literature. University of Chicago Press. p. 111. ISBN 9780226467535. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course not, but it's best to actually use them to substantiate a claim... what does this source actually say, can you explain? Did Vuk Vinaver write a book to say the whole story is a legend, or? (Either way, this seems to inherently undercut the idea that this topic is not notable... even if it's a legend, it was worthy of a book specifically about it?) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think such a title would be better compared to the current WP:NDESC title, especially when we literally have the article currently quoting a historian saying there's no conclusive proof of a colony there. We know the church was named after St. Blaise, but not much about the trading post / potential colony per se. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW that journal article is from 1963, while the source I mention, that is in the article, is from 2018. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Croatia Week (and TOI, declared to be of dubious reliability at WP:RSP) are definitely reliable sources to document economic history in a controversial domain. Himal Southasian is a decent magazine (employs academics as editors) but have you read it? This article can be redirected to Gandaulim at best. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the disputed factual accuracy of this, I would be loathe to close as no consensus, unless there truly is no alternative. Is there any appropriately suitable redirect target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theres more than just these.TheRollBoss001 (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your first citation is incorrect. Recheck details and don't use Google metadata blindly. You are citing this article from about 80 years ago - I have already used it in my section alongside recent sources, all of which paint a contrasting picture. What's new?
The mention in the last source is by the same author (Vuk Vinaver), I quote in support of pseudo-history. The title goes Mercanti E Bastimenti Di Ragusa in India: Una Leggenda. It is obvious that you have not even read the source, you are quoting.
Go to a real library, borrow books, and read them; google Snippets are usually worthless. If you can write anything more than what stands at this section, take the lead. I wish to see how that ends up. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: stop being disruptive and stop changing my comment like you are doing in violation of WP:REFACTOR. Your comment came 2 minutes after my edit so better fix your own comment. The last source is accessible and the chapter is "Mercanti e bastimenti di Ragusa in India". You can also ask someone else for source access. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I insisted that your citation to Hicks stayed because it shew how you are engaging in an AfD without reading a single source and based on the hits GSnippet throws up.
I have never claimed the last source to be inaccessible. I have already quoted the chapter-name, author, and how it supports my point (than your's) - why are you quoting it back at me but excluding a sig. part (Una Leggenda)? TrangaBellam (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Validity and interestingness aren't criterion for keeping an article. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but notability and sourcing are. Validity and interest nevertheless do reinforce notability. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Arkona, Ontario. Although no outright consensus was reached, merging does have support and is a viable alternative to deletion. The article should be redirected to the target after merging. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Townsend[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography of a person notable primarily as the first settler of a small village. As always, this is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage about him to get him over WP:GNG -- but the sources here are just contextlessly listed without being used to footnote any body content, and two of the three are just local history books which certainly mention his name without being all that strongly about him, while the third is just a primary source tax assessment roll which isn't support for notability at all. Being the first resident of a small village simply is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Editors have achieved a strong consensus that the article subject is notable, owing to significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley C. Norton[edit]

Stanley C. Norton (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:BASIC, Navsource not RS and just confirms ships commanded. Hickam's Torpedo Junction no page numbers provided, just confirms that he commanded Destroyer Division 54 and WP:1E of sinking of U-85. Military Times Hall of Valor debatable reliability just confirms award for sinking of U-85. Bunch's U-Boats off the Outer Banks which I added, again just confirms his command of Destroyer Division 54 and sinking of U-85. A Google search throws up various US Navy publications listing his promotions or commands, but nothing of any substance. Basic biographical detail is lacking. For a Rear Admiral he had surprisingly little coverage and so is not notable Mztourist (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide specific page numbers for each claim being supported, listing every page of the book where he is referred to doesn't satisfy referencing which is why I deleted them, it just looks like you copied his index entry from the book. The pages that you referred to were not available online. The bigger issue is that the reference, the other new book that you added: United States destroyer operations in World War II and the Miami Herald story again just cover the WP:1E of the sinking of U-85. They don't provide any biographical detail about him other than that one event. Everything can be covered in a paragraphs on the USS Roper and U-85 pages which I have already added. Find a Grave is user contributed and so not RS. The detail about accelerating the graduating classes at Annapolis is generic and not specific to him. Mztourist (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't AGF with the page creator because of the various accusations he has made and his REVENGE AFDs. If you add a ref you provide specific page numbers for the matter being referenced, not 6 different pages: [38]. In your source analysis it doesn't concern you that the sources are generally user contributed, PRIMARY or relate to the WP:1E of the sinking of U-85? Mztourist (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The two main sources from the article, Military Times and the Portsmouth Herald, are both independent publications with editorial oversight and constitute significant independent coverage. The rest of the RS is either primary sources or less in depth but collectively adds up to passing GNG in my view. Given that one of these sources was written years after his death and both sources years after the event in question we are seeing WP:SUSTAINED coverage which indicates wider significance justifying a stand alone article as articulated at WP:1E. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two of 20 sources and I don't regard Military Times as reliable, the page states "The Hall of Valor is a searchable database of valor award citations collected by Doug Sterner, a Vietnam veteran and Military Times contributing editor, and by Military Times staff.". There is no sustained coverage here, some passing mentions, PRIMARY sources details his promotions and then the WP:1E of the attack on U-85. Strangely there is nothing at all about him after that other than the listing of his command of USS Trenton from June 1943 to June 1944. Mztourist (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you there. military Times is an independent news organization with an editorial board and a staff of full time journalists. The compiler of The Hall of Valor is a senior editor with years working as an independent journalist. There’s really nothing here to discredit either source.4meter4 (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is the only event of his life for which there is a reasonable amount of coverage, so yes WP:1E is relevant. Everything else apart from his obit is passing mentions in PRIMARY sources. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but if the role and his involvement in it were significant, WP:1E ceases to be a valid reason for deletion and adequate justification for an article. St★lwart111 04:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it means that the sinking of U-85 justifies a page and the minimal detail about him should be merged into it. Mztourist (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can have articles for both. We're not running out of paper. St★lwart111 06:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For reference, the sources are these: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. jp×g 23:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Two Submarines Of Axis Are Sunk". The Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, California. 1943-02-23. p. 4.
  2. ^ "Big Battle Against Submarine Menace". The Chico Enterprise. Chico, California. 1943-02-23. p. 2.
  3. ^ "Ninety-Three Lieutenant Commanders To Be Promoted". The Honolulu Advertiser. Honolulu, Hawaii. 1938-02-20. p. 39.
  4. ^ "Gets Cross for 'Successful Action'". The Miami Herald. Miami, Florida. 1942-09-01. p. 2.
  5. ^ "Naval Orders". News-Pilot. San Pedro, California. 1939-05-17. p. 10.
  6. ^ "Navy chief here from Denver on inspection trip". The Daily Sentinel. Grand Junction, Colorado. 1935-06-23. p. 16.
  7. ^ "War Department And Navy Orders". Daily Press. Newport News, Virginia. 1933-04-11. p. 6.
  8. ^ "Naval Orders". News-Pilot. San Pedro, California. 1932-01-11. p. 9.
  9. ^ "Naval Orders". The Long Beach Sun. Long Beach, California. 1932-01-09. p. 13.
  10. ^ "American Vessels in Chinese Waters". Des Moines Tribune. Des Moines, Iowa. 1927-04-04. p. 8.
  11. ^ "To Report Here Soon". The Portsmouth Herald. Portsmouth, New Hampshire. 1924-11-13. p. 4.
  12. ^ "Sixteen Enter Naval Academy". The Baltimore Sun. Baltimore, Maryland. 1914-06-14. p. 2.
Well, I use reliable sourcing guidelines, general notability guidelines and significant coverage guidelines to determine what sources I include in an article. If you can explain why the sources above don't meet these guidelines, I'm willing to listen, and I'll remove any that fall short -- but I don't see what your comment has to do with that. jp×g 07:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As with your other recent efforts, they amount to REFBOMBING which if you read it states that "A common form of citation overkill is loading up an article with sources without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. This may boost the number of footnotes and create a superficial appearance of notability, which can obscure a lack of substantive, reliable, and relevant information." and "Citations lacking significant coverage – Citations which briefly namecheck the fact that the subject exists, but are not actually about the subject to any non-trivial degree." Most of the refs you have added here and on the other current AFDs are mere namechecks and passing mentions that add little to what is already there, the news stories may be useful for replacing PRIMARY sources in the article, but it seems that you are just adding multiple passing mentions as references for the same facts. Mztourist (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the primary purpose of citations is to support the text of an article; winning arguments at AfD is a secondary consideration. It's certainly not my attempt to bamboozle you into thinking that every single source in the article is, in its own right, SIGCOV (that's why I linked all of the references I added here in this discussion so that you could read through them). jp×g 05:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How many of the refs that you added, actually added new information to the page? Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What? jp×g 08:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say that "the primary purpose of citations is to support the text of an article; winning arguments at AfD is a secondary consideration" and so I'm asking you what new information was added to the page as a result of the refs that you added? Because I really don't see much that wasn't there already. Mztourist (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article's prose size increased from 247 to 314 words, which is a 27% expansion, so I have no idea what you are talking about and would appreciate if you refrained from casting aspersions. jp×g 22:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose size is irrelevant, what is relevant is what new information was added, which is minimal. What aspersions am I casting? I have already made my views very clear that you are REFBOMBING articles at AFD. Mztourist (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A very WP:MILL military career with one notable event and nothing about his life from 1944 to his death in 1978. A BEFORE search revealed nothing of note and a lot of passing mentions in promotions and postings lists don't change that.Mztourist (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MILL is just an essay. Lightburst (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes its an essay, but that doesn't mean its not true. Norton had a completely run of the mill military career, with one significant event, the sinking of U-85. Mztourist (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of unidentified murder victims in Texas. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harris County Does[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. The majority of the sources are primary sources such as missing person databases and government/law enforcement websites. Much of the articles constitutes WP:Original research or WP:Original synthesis of primary sources. The news coverage is WP:ROUTINE coverage for police investigating John Doe cases and doesn't count as RS per WP:NOTNEWS. Topic lacks any independent significant coverage in reliable sources. According to NAMUS, law enforcement processes over 4,000 unidentified bodies a year in the United States; so there is nothing inherently notable about cases like these. Further the naming is problematic as Harris County has many more does in their cold case files. 4meter4 (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it's not notable to stand on its own it shouldn't exist on that list. Death related lists on wikipedia typically limit entries to those with stand alone articles.4meter4 (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:55, 2 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 03:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lphoto[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references. Imcdc (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:23, 2 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 Mun Tsai Tong. Sandstein 20:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tsing Yi Fishermen's Children's Primary School[edit]

Tsing Yi Fishermen's Children's Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Little coverage Imcdc (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a newbie, 1.64.48.231, please read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Matthew hk (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dead Mac Scrolls[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references Imcdc (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:17, 2 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 03:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarax[edit]

Mandarax (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. Imcdc (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:12, 2 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cristóbal Alex[edit]

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

Draft-quality article does not belong in mainspace. Position does not confer notability. KidAd • SPEAK 02:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:46, 2 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 03:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Olson[edit]

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

Former child actor who only played minor roles, and seemingly stopped acting in 2010. WP:BEFORE revealed little of substance, so looks like a WP:GNG failure CiphriusKane (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More