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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject Barrettmagic ^Talk 15:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Barrettmagic ^Talk 15:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a club. Rathfelder (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion rationale is not valid, as AfD is not cleanup. Furthermore, I disagree with the nominating statement. It is an ethnic group, which are very often notable on their own merits. In addition, the nominator seems to have ignored the existing sources in the article, much less done any type of WP:BEFORE, there were four very solid references at time of nomination. More have been added since. GNG met by several miles. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meet WP:GNG as sources in article show.Brayan ocaner (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this clan (or sub-clan) has been the source of additional scholarly coverage [1] [2], and WP:GNG is in my view satisfied. The article certainly needs to be fleshed out. Pilaz (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Another non-notable YouTuber with no coverage, let alone significant one. PK650 (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there is no coverage in publications I would consider to be reliable enough to contribute to notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Martyr's Memorial B-Division League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

0 references Kind regards, JJK2000 (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• JJK2000, as it is, this nomination is arguably eligible for speedy keep per WP:CSK#1 and even #3. You seem to know of WP:AFDHOWTO, but what about the preceding section,WP:BEFORE? Please read it, and update your nomination with a valid WP:DELREASON. You have made one assertion about the state of the article; it's neither true nor enough reason for deletion if true. You've made more nominations that look identical. I'd advise you to stop and see how these ones go, first. In the meantime, an admin should seriously consider if the current nominations should be speedy kept and the nom advised to make better nominations moving forward. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Usedtobecool about the quality of the nomination but this article fails WP:V having been unsourced since 2014. In football terms, the league is minor and well outside WP:FPL. Fails GNG too. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 13:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV. I could not find any English-language Google results that would satisfy GNG outside of passing mentions of the league. There certainly could be Nepali language-sources, however that's not my expertise. If someone can provide those, I could be persuaded to change my answer depending on that level of coverage. GauchoDude (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NEXIST, WP:BIAS. There is absolutely no way that the second-tier tournament of a country of 30 million which loves football as much as any other would not meet WP:GNG. There is not much online but there is enough evidence to indicate that national newspapers at the time would have covered this. See this and this. I assume this is also reliable? It has WP:SIGCOV. There is plenty of additional coverage, including in goal.com which I have not mentioned because I am not sure of their reliablity. There is similar bits and pieces coverage of other seasons in RSes online which is another indicator that the record is patchy online for older seasons but all of them are covered with equal interest by the established national newspapers; and therefore the complete coverage should be available offline. If you search for the latest season of this tournament, you can find every little detail of it in all the reputable online RSes. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Usedtobecool, appears to be enough coverage available. Plus, the nominator doesn't appear to have done a WP:BEFORE. Afd is WP:NOTCLEANUP. NemesisAT (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Usedtobecool's arguments are compelling here. In response, I would say that being covered regularly in Goal.com would be evidence of notability as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This and this from goal.com are quickly found. I found this with a harder look. There may be more. Such as this. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as there is plenty of coverage in Nepalese sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Seems to be an unremarkable definition of an uncommon Turkish name Salimfadhley (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a name dictionary. Geschichte (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have to discount the "19 refs" argument, which means there is a general consensus that the article is unsalvageable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Apparently promotional article, most content by SPAs. Claims of significant noteworthiness, but no evidence that Hawkins passes any prong of WP:JOURNALIST, or WP:GNG; most sources are primary or non-RS blogs; one RS is an article by Hawkins, and only the Yahoo! News article is even passing RS coverage. A WP:BEFORE overwhelmingly returns other people called "John Hawkins". I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would have to be shown, with independent third-party coverage in solid RSes that clearly meets WP:JOURNALIST, WP:GNG or another notability criterion. David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As I said on the article's talk page: I don't agree that most of the content is from SPAs, I see in the history several confirmed editors who have done other topics. I don't agree that WP:GNG fails because most sources are primary or non-RS blogs, some of the mentioned publications / websites look famous to me. Also I believe WP:AUTHOR criteria tend to be less stringent. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which prongs of WP:AUTHOR does it meet? There's also the completely zero third-party RS coverage - David Gerard (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've checked those sources that are independent and reliable, and they don't tell us enough about this man to populate an encyclopaedia article. I've searched for additional sources, and I've found nothing useable.—S Marshall T/C 13:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Writing articles for notable publications does not confer notability. KidAd • SPEAK 22:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 19 refs is pretty good for a small article like this. Dswitz10734 (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it were cut down to RSes about Hawkins, it would have almost no refs - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources provided are not entirely third party or merely confirm he had stuff published. There is a lack of indepth coverage where he is the subject. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear the subject meets at least WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Smith (psychologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Apparently promotional bio, flagged on the talk page for notability for many years. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR or any other specific guideline. Article is entirely primary sources, and contains zero third-party RS coverage; going back through old versions in the history doesn't show any better cites. A WP:BEFORE doesn't show notability for the author nor either of her books. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would have to be shown, with solid coverage in independent third-party RSes. David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. As nominator says, article is full of primary sources. LibStar (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or maybe move. I absolutely agree it's very promo, but that doesn't mean she isn't notable. She meets GNG. Independent Women's Forum are enormous fans of hers and keep using her as a scientific voice - [1] [2] [3] [4]. Mother Jones are not fans of hers - [5]. Wall Street Journal think she's on the right track but needs to learn how to make strong arguments - [6]. Daily Life - [7]. Most articles talking about her do also mention her book, which is why I gave "move" as an option. But I prefer to keep the article as Smith because the book is consistently discussed as though it's an extension of her voice, and some of the articles do also discuss her as a person or other things she's said. --Xurizuri (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as seems to meet WP:GNG, and WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I would propose that the attention she receives from the IWF could satisfy WP:NACADEMIC. Many of the viewpoints they hold are objectionable and MRA-adjacent, but they seem to have a non-negligible presence among the center-right. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is not an academic, but there is plenty of coverage, provided above as well as more out there. scope_creep^Talk 16:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as she receives plenty of coverageJackattack1597 (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soleil Diva (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 references, and most of the content is about Koffi Olomide. Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. I nearly deleted this under WP:CSD#A10 but then noticed those blasted words "recently created", and this unfinished copypasta draft has been around for SIX YEARS since the text was copied verbatim from Koffi Olomide... time to finally get rid of it. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I removed the content and references which were copied from the Koffi Olomide article. This didn't leave a lot. I have added a reference to a film whose script was written by the subject, which at least provides some verification of the "film maker" claim in the text, but falls short of demonstrating WP:CREATIVE notability. AllyD (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Once the material about someone else is removed, this becomes a barely-referenced Infobox in search of an article. Some traces of coverage of the subject can be found: a 2004 post mentioning Atlanta and Auburn University, a 2013 blog post, and mentions of the film I referenced above, but unless anyone is able to locate better and rewrite from scratch, there is nothing to demonstrate attained biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is odd to say the least. Until recent cleanup by the folks above, this article was entirely about Koffi Olomide and I can find no evidence that the two performers are even connected, except for being Congolese. I can find no reliable coverage of Soleil Diva/Marie Solo beyond mirrors of the old versions of this article and lists of musicians of Congolese extraction created from that same mirrored info. The Internet also thinks that Soleil Diva was born in both 1956 (Olomide's birth year) and 1975. This article reflects a clumsy mistake or a particularly inept attempt at self promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I don't believe the subject meets WP:NMUSIC. The sourcing is either unreliable, not significant coverage, or both. De-PROD'd with one additional source (Groove Cartel), but if the best sourcing available is a fairly routine "people release song" report in a low-impact blogazine, I think that points towards deletion rather than away from it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - My assessment of the sources has reached a similar conclusion to that of the nominator, in that essentially all of the references appear to be local and/or industry-specific news blogs, which does not satisfy criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC. The remaining criteria are also not met, and neither is WP:GNG. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't pass general guidelines for notability. Mtpos (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Writers Community (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, and doesn't come anywhere close to passing NWEB/NCORP. The sources used are low quality press releases published from agency feed. The article was created by the founder of the website whose account is globally locked. M4DU7 (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable as of yet. AnM2002 (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG founded in 2020 upcoming at best not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet notability criteria and has no potential media coverage. Mommmyy (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't meet with WP:GNG.  ||  Orbit Wharf 19:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  ||  Orbit Wharf 19:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions.  ||  Orbit Wharf 19:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This stub is horribly written, but cursory Google searches confirm its environmental significance.[8][9] Several Google Book hits (mostly snippet views) also indicate historical significance as well. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gene93k: So please add the sources. ||  Orbit Wharf 06:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Gene93k, the article should be improved rather than deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the island has environmental significance, especially the elephants, IUCN report on conservation, Protection plan, studies on impact on wildlife.Gorden 2211 (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:BEFORE applies. Granted, this stub isn’t very well-written; however, a search turns up multiple reliable sources establishing notability and significance, including [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14], among others; and this doesn’t include book mentions. The article should be improved with better prose and cited sources, not deleted. Krillzyx (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non notable individual, does not comply at all with WP:NPEOPLE. Although it contains some references from Chilean mainstream media, it seems to me a great effort has been made to make this individual look notable when he isn't. There are some references for his participation in controversial events, but most do not even mention Izquierdo. Some original research has been made, especially in the ideology section, since no book, no article, no paper, etc., has ever been published analyzing Izquierdo's thoughts. In fact, he has not even published an article, ever. Some references are Twitter and YouTube. Is he relevant enough as a YouTuber? I don't think so. Also fails WP:NPOL. Please also refer to the Spanish Wikipedia request for deletion, where there is unanimous support for its deletion for the same, previously exposed reasons. Bedivere (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, The article is forceful in attempting to present Izquierdo as notable. Relevant parts of this comment be better off in the article Far-right politics in Chile, where other personalities of this type can also be mentioned. Dentren | ^Talk 08:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article has tons of foreign language references with inline citations. Given this fact, I am not seeing a strong argument for deletion without a much more detailed source analysis that addresses each reference individually.4meter4 (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1 is unavailable (primary). Ref No. 2 is kind of reliable. Publimetro has taken a clear left wing stance and may be non neutral. Ref 3 to 5 are definitely not reliable, especially no. 5. In fact, this article relies heavily on El Universal, which is a sensationalist, definitely not reliable, blog (disguised as an online newspaper) which is run by Felipe Henriquez, who is a well known (not for good reasons) Twitter user and leftist "activist". Some references do not even exist, such as No. 11 (Zank You). Many references do not even mention Izquierdo: ref 8, 9, 10, 20, 21. There are some references that are "analyzed" by whoever added it (original research): ref 22, 36, 39. Bedivere (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not gone through references in detail, but I have much like Bedivere also noted the quality of references is very poor. Dentren | ^Talk 10:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Simply saying "Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY" is not an acceptable argument, particularly when editors have said the subject doesn't, with reasoning. I am happy to restore to user space or a draft if requested. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL, his professional play being limited to 15 minutes for Maritimo. Cited sources are nowhere near enough for an encyclopedic article, given the lack of sporting achievements. Geschichte (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails GNG. I suspect this article is an autobiography. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It appears he also played professionally for Lusitânia F.C. S.C. Lusitânia so meets WP:NFOOTBALL. There may well be sources in Portuguese. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are linking the wrong club, and the league he played in, the Segunda Divisao B, was not professional. Geschichte (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Frias does not meet NFOOTY, which only recognizes the top two Portuguese divisions as being "fully professional" for the sake of satisfying NFOOTY. Lusitania was in the third division when Frias played there. Whether there might be sources in Portuguese is irrelevant; the GNG requires not that the theoretical existence of reliable sources providing substantial coverage to the subject be alleged, but that such sources need to be produced. Ravenswing 23:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  My mistake over Lusitania, I thought the fact that they are a professional club is enough. But he does (just) meet NFOOTBALL because of his single appearance for Maritimo.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – playing in the Primeira Liga confers notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. Article needs improving, not deleting. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, this was a snarky rationale, but I don't particularly care at the moment. Frias also meets GNG, with both of the articles already on the page (broken currently, but accessible through the Wayback Machine), as well as coverage such as this Boston Globe article or Soccer America or this from his time at Mount Ida. Unlike the nom's claims, there's enough sources to write an encyclopedic article; unlike Ravenswing's claim, he absolutely does meet NFOOTY through the appearance with Marítimo. And as to NGS's thought that this is an autobiography, then you'd better be able to provide some proof that Frias is a pro wrestling fan, because the article creator was also quite prolific there back in 2007. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keskkonnakaitse [15] is just transfer news, and the 2 Newspapers.com clippings say "This clipping has been marked as not public."- are you able to mark them as public so people can check them (or just give the original URLs for them)? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Joseph2302 I believe I just made them publicly viewable, but let me know if they still aren't showing up. I can also give the original URLs, but without a Newspapers.com subscription they won't be viewable either. That's just the reality of early American soccer coverage: just like early British coverage, it was almost entirely in print (until about 2010 and in some places even after that).Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, let's take an actual look. As it happens, everything but the Dell'Abpa Globe article are casual mentions -- it would never occur to me to claim that a 42-word article met the "substantial coverage" bar the GNG sets -- or routine sports coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE from bolstering notability. I stand by my vote; a single 15-minute stint does not immunize a subject from meeting the GNG. I'd be more impressed at "article needs improving" if any attempt was made to do so. Ravenswing 14:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then would you complain if I actively attempted to improve the article (the same way I just did Steve Palacios) while this AFD is still ongoing? Back in 2019 I tried to do so at an article that was at AFD and was rebuked for doing so...but if there aren't the same complaints here, I'd love to overhaul this article. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Me? Good heavens, no. I'm what editors looking for a cheap ad hominem slur call a deletionist, but the goal should be improved articles, and I'm not one of those cementheads who think that filing an AfD somehow puts a freeze on the article. If you improve it to the point where I change my mind on deletion, that's a win all around, right? Go for it. Ravenswing 17:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL and scrapes by WP:GNG. Needs improving, not deleting. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as he passes NFOOTY, and barely passes GNGJackattack1597 (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Has had 49 edits since being nominated. Can someone trim all the unused infobox parameters though? They are literal cruft. Geschichte (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Seabrook (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, poorly-written page for a forgotten union official who fails WP:ANYBIO. Local/regional news coverage is more related to the Correction Officers' Benevolent Association. If there is no consensus to delete, I suggest a redirect to that page. KidAd • SPEAK 22:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he ran the largest municipal jail Union plus he had some controversy. More research and work on the article might make it better.--Rrmmll22 (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ No policy-based rationale here. Just WP:ILIKEIT. KidAd • SPEAK 00:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In other words he passes WP:GNG very easily. There is no reason to delete this. He ran the largest Union in NYC and he had weekly radio show that was popular and then he got bagged for corruption big time. He lost like 20 million in the Union employees retirement funding. There are tons of articles on this incident, plus he was very influential during his almost 20 years as Union leader. I had never head of this guy and just did some quick research on him and found he was quite spoken about in news articles. Also WP:NTEMP makes, “forgotten union official” not have any merit. Granted it needs to be worked on some but it should not be deleted this guy is a very colorful character it would appear. --Rrmmll22 (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep was a powerplayer in NYC politics. He was very influential and ran into corruption issues. I did not want to put the corruption issues in as it may have violated Bio of Living Person . I am also the author of the article. BlackAmerican (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Individual passes GNG by my assessment. Interesting finds include this bio from the US Treasury, coverage of his situation by the AP and the New York Times, US Attorney briefing, assessment by Columbia Law School. Article does need heavy cleanup, though. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The extensive reporting in national newspapers on the subject of the article, referred to above, means that Seabrook definitely meets WP:GNG. I counted twenty articles directly on Seabrook in the New York Times and many others are tangentially about him. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Most biographies fail WP:ANYBIO, so that's not a useful deletion rationale. The bio seems to pass WP:BASIC and it's not a WP:BLP1E, so should be kept. pburka (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

BLP. Only reference is his own band's website. Rathfelder (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. While I found and added a number of sources (to help establish some basic facts as part of a WP:BEFORE exercise) I cannot find anything to concretely establish notability. In terms of GNG/SIGCOV, most of the sources I found are not primarily about the subject (Rather, the subject is mentioned in articles which are about other topics. Like Elvis tributes in Ireland generally. Or his family's greengrocer business in Ballyfermot). In terms of MUSICBIO, I cannot find anything that establishes evidence of charting, albums, significant radio play, etc. I'm not seeing it. Mine is a "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet WP:MUSICBIO TolWol56 (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kata#Outside martial arts. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kata (programming) (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 is irrelevant as all the information here can be found in the main Kata article. Hextor26 (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hextor26 (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kata#Outside_martial_arts, for the benefit of pages linking to this one. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you. Hextor26 (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Kata#Outside_martial_arts as an alternative for deletion. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This does not appear to be a notable subject, and a redirect is not necessary because the pages linking to this one can simply be edited to remove the links. Somno (talk) 08:40, 29 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tako Taal (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 artist is "scheduled to debut her first solo exhibition" but we already have an encyclopedia article about her. That's too soon. Can we give our subjects some time to actually create the body of work that they perhaps, some 25 years from now, are going to be known for? Vexations (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:TOOSOON this emerging artist is at the very beginning stages of her career. No indication that her work is included in significant museum collections; nor received in-depth coverage in reviews/articles over an extended period of time in independent reliable sources. She is not yet considered a significant contributor to her field, nor created a well-known work or collective body of work, but perhaps over the next several years her career will develop enough to sustain an article. Does not pass WP:NARTIST criteria for inclusion. Netherzone (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete GNG fail. There is a bit of coverage, but the majority of it is published by the organizations she has worked with. Some other sources I saw were interviews. This article is about five or ten years ahead of its time, assuming her career continues on the same upward trajectory. --- Possibly ☎ 01:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you for your thoughtful feedback, everyone. I am the author of this article and I can see it may be too soon. Perhaps this could be moved to draft space for improvements over the coming months? LeahLockhart (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsure, does not come close to meeting the WP:NARTIST criteria, but that is not the whole story. A quick search has revealed useful coverage in reliable sources
  • Urwin Jones, Sarah (25 January 2021). "Galleries: Artists over the moon at film festival". The Herald. Glasgow. – Interview-based feature
  • Spens, Christiana (21 January 2021). "Tako Taal and Adam Benmakhlouf – interview: 'This slow-motion style of festival creates a community of audience members'". Studio International. – Interview
  • Smith, Roberta (6 May 2021). "On Governors Island, Art Interventions Are Everywhere". The New York Times. – Mention in a review of a group exhibition

The first two are substantial articles in a major newspaper and a significant art magazine. The third is a brief mention in the New York Times, indicating an international profile. Her upcoming solo exhibition at Dundee Contemporary Arts may attract substantial reviews - perhaps we should keep this open for a few weeks until it has opened. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summa (mathematics) (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 stub which has seldom been expanded. Too few meaningful content. Only definition and nothing more. No more explanation. Just one link to other languages. Appropriate in Wiktionary but not here in Wikipedia. UNITE TOGETHER, STRIVE FOR SURVIVAL! 14:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. UNITE TOGETHER, STRIVE FOR SURVIVAL! 14:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Integral#Historical notation with ((R to section)). Alternatively, and arguably better, redirect to Long s#Modern usage to Coastside (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Long s#Modern usage, per Coastside. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no redirect. This is an English encyclopedia, not a Latin dictionary. Neither of the redirect targets above is good: integral symbol doesn't even mention this supposed name for the symbol, and Long s is mostly about something else than the use of this symbol for integration (and to the extent that it goes on in too much detail about the integration symbol, the content there should be moved to integral symbol). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Integral#Historical notation does mention summa. I'm not sure I agree it's a simple translation from Latin. The indefinite integral doesn't mean 'sum', and Leibniz's use of the word in the sense of indefinite integral, which he wrote ſumma was new. Coastside (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - On second assessment, I now don't believe that the target covers this concept sufficiently to warrant redirecting to it. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:07, 28 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British and Romanian Royal Families (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 premise of the article, “let’s talk about every possible interaction between two random entities that nobody else has bothered to compile before”, is sort of a textbook example of original research, no? Also note that the bulk of the text deals with interactions since 1952, five years after the Romanian royals were overthrown. It’s basically “the husband of the ex-King’s daughter had dinner with the Queen’s younger son”, i.e. trivia. Biruitorul ^Talk 13:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I’m surprised this was accepted at AFC. It appears to be a minutely-sourced compendium of meetings at garden parties and other social functions. I’m not aware of any scholarly sources that focus on the relations between these two royal houses; if there are any I don’t imagine they’ll support this level of Royalty-magazine detail. Mccapra (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mccapra it was a new reviewer, who has also now been blocked as a sock. KylieTastic (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both royal families don't have any kind of special relationship that could be worth an article. This article is also unique in Wikipedia, we don't have other articles on relations between royal families. Super Ψ Dro 21:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A textbook example of WP:CROSSCAT. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.per nom.---✨LazyManiik✨ 12:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as essay. Dahn (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. – robertsky (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - I totally agree with nominator and the comments above. The relationship between these two royal houses is not particularly notable and the content of the article is basically trivia, particularly the list of visits and occasions post 1952 - no encyclopaedic article needs to mention multiple meetings between royals which are not presented as having any significance. Dunarc (talk) 16:34, 31 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 Blizzard North. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Castaway Entertainment (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 short lived video game developer that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Though the article says they never developed a game, it does seem like they co-developed one, "adgame" about the Toyota Yaris (video game), but that was it. The only sources currently in the article, and all other sources I can find through searches aside from trivial mentions, are all either just reports on its deal with EA or reports on the company shutting down, which, per WP:NCORP, falls under routine coverage that does not contribute towards notability. It was nominated for deletion once way back in 2007, but that resulted in a No Consensus decision, largely because it was still unclear whether or not the studio was still in operation. As we now know that it is not, and never produced anything of note, I felt it was time to re-examine it. Rorshacma (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Blizzard North as alternative to deletion. A single sentence would suffice, based on the coverage, but this short-lived developer is part of the other's story. czar 19:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per above argument about ATD, not enough to warrant keeping this as a stand-alone article per NCOMPANY/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Northamerica1000, why does this need further discussion? czar 04:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Czar: I feel that two !votes for merging, along with one !vote for deletion (the nomination itself) does not constitute a solid consensus. Note that the nominator appears to be opining for straight deletion, rather than merging or redirection. It seems that you may be discounting the opinion of the nominator in favor of yours and Piotrus' above, essentially declaring a consensus by way of questioning the relisting of the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are closed in logs each day with comparable activity. This is an uncontroversial close, especially given that it preserves content from a stub. czar 05:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Czar: Perhaps you could provide some examples of similar recent closures. While AfD is not based upon an !vote count, two merge !votes and one delete !vote, all of which include valid, guideline- and policy-based arguments, does not constitute an actual consensus. I've been doing this for a while; perhaps standards have laxed in favor of faster closures. It's also important to note the arguments in the previous AfD discussion as well, rather than ignore that discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000, I don't want to get off-topic here—just wanted to know if there was a reason for the relist, but most logs have closures with two non-nom !votes (bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 5, middle of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 9). Relists are only meant to be used when the consensus is unclear or controversial. This discussion is in agreement that the subject is non-notable and there have been no arguments against preserving what can be salvaged from the content. czar 06:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Czar: Some of those closures you mention are non-admin closures, and very well may have been best closed by an admin. Most are discussions where three users (including the nominator) have all opined for the same result, which is not how this discussion has transpired. Nowhere at WP:RELIST does it say that relists are "only meant" when consensus is controversial, as you state above. It seems that you are entirely making your own rule in this case, because it is not policy based. Furthermore, in congruence with WP:RELIST, this discussion has had "only a few participants (including the nominator)." This is not a particularly substantive debate, and the concerns of the nominator have barely been addressed. Additionally, the fact that the article has already been through the AfD process once with a no consensus closure deems this discussion as at the very least potentially controversial. If I were to close this now with a merge result, it is quite possible that others may consider it to be a WP:SUPERVOTE. Essentially, if one more user were to opine for merging, with a valid guideline- or policy-based rationale, that would be enough to be considered a consensus in this particular instance. A simple two versus one, when all provide such valid rationales, is not really a consensus, it's a vote count. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned articles are not at deletion review and they will not be contested. As for vote counting, I don't think it's "two versus one" and it's easy enough to ask the "one": @Rorshacma, are you opposed to merger? czar 07:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I suppose I would not be opposed to merger. Looking at the Blizzard North article, there is already precedent for another, short lived company that was formed by former employees to be mentioned there, so a sentence merger there for this one would probably be fine. Rorshacma (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added a couple sources. I feel articles in IGN and Gamespot are sufficient to meet GNG, and this is enough to establish notability per WP:GNG: "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right". NemesisAT (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Those sources—simple announcements of the studio's closure—do not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. They are repackaged press releases, some consisting entirely of quotes. czar 07:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, one of the new sources is literally a press release from the company, and thus not a valid reliable source, and the other is still just routine coverage of the studio's closure. Rorshacma (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Blizzard North as an WP:ATD measure. The further sources which have been brought up still do not provide nearly enough information for its written prose to be expanded beyond that of a near-stub. On a side note, North America1000's decision to err on the side of caution by relisting the discussion should be commended. Haleth (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested above, given the routine coverage. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 27 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 11:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

probably not notable. No article in etwiki. No entry in the database ESBL (http://www.esbl.ee). Even not won Estonian championships Estopedist1 (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The personal best tells it all, Salmijanov is very far from international level, and indeed he fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to C More Entertainment#Television channels. ✗plicit 14:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C More Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Defunct TV channel, unreferenced in 15 years. No evidence of in-depth coverage anywhere. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to C More Entertainment#Television channels A multiplex channel that noted its format right in its title; we don't need a full article about this. Nate • (chatter) 21:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to C More Entertainment#Television channels per above. Not independently notable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hazem Elmashad (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 meeting WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:GNG. Given references are passing mentions and a directory entry with almost no content. noq (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NBASKET. SportsGuy789 (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:NCORP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete trivial coverage in refs -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 14:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Requisite depth of coverage is not met by existing pool of references, with two being primary, one being an industry news blog, and one being the lead portion of a BBC article. Article as-is reads like a product catalog, and searches for further coverage seem to only turn up results for unrelated medical journals with the word "Diabetology" in the title. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lacks the sort of coverage required to support an article, based on my searches. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of works by Edward Robert Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is essentially the same as https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Edward_Robert_Hughes. Should it exist in this form? Vexations (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep lists of works of notable creators are encyclopaedic and I don’t see any clear rationale for deleting this one. Mccapra (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The question was: "Should it exist in this form?" It's not a gallery (one exists in the article on Hughes), not an (illustrated) list of links to articles about notable artworks but a list of linked filenames. Vexations (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is a difference between a category and a list article. Clearly a notable topic that is too big to be in Hughes’ article. Needs better sourcing and some improvements but no reason for deletion. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Is the list topic discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources? If so, where? Vexations (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vexations: I suppose I viewed this like a discography or bibliography in that Hughes is usually only spoken about in RS in relation to his works. If you think this article doesn't meet WP:LISTN, is a content fork of Edward Robert Hughes or should be merged into the Edward Robert Hughes article due to notability issues then you should make that argument. Your nomination only makes the case that it should not exist because a wikimedia commons category already exists. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A valid spinoff article of content that wouldn't fit easily in the main article. If someone is famous for their artwork, then a list of what they created should be somewhere. Dream Focus 18:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We should have a List of works by (Artist) for every notable artist. Is that your argument? We have ((Navboxes)) for artists whose works themselves are notable. But your argument is that we should list any and all works, isn't it? Vexations (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia search for "List of works by" [16]. Or just go to Category:Lists of works of art. You can also read through Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Overlapping_categories,_lists_and_navigation_templates_are_not_considered_duplicative. Dream Focus 22:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll take that as a "Yes, we should have indiscriminate lists of all works by anyone for whom we have an article". Vexations (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep we have lists of releases for musicians and authors, and list of films for actors, so I don't see why an artist shouldn't have a list of works too. The advantage of this article over simply browsing the Wikimedia Commons category is the superior format which is organised and has additional dates, the file names on Wikimedia Commons aren't all helpful either. NemesisAT (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per discussion. Hughes is a prominent associated artist of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, well worthy of an encyclopedic list of his artworks. Some articles should be deleted, this isn't one of them. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Previously deleted in 2017. Edwardx (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not satisfy acting notability or general notability. An article should speak for itself, but there is nothing in the article that makes any claim of general notability.

The filmography lists four films, but none of them show significant roles:

A review of the references shows that they may be the results of a naïve Google search. They all reference to the subject, which means that the search was properly done. They are also all properly formatted, which show that the author has read Referencing for Beginners. None of them are independent significant secondary coverage. The references are all consistent with the article, in backing up the run-of-the-mill career that is documented in the article.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Robert McClenon's source analysis. Available sources are not indepentent enough to meet GNG and does not have enough significant roles for WP:NACTOR Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator; no delete votes. (non-admin closure) - hako9 (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The River (skyscraper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Condominium building does not meet WP:GNG- coverage is routine articles or not from independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to List of tallest structures in Thailand, it was the second tallest building in Thailand during 2012-2016. Also listed here https://www.emporis.com/statistics/tallest-buildings/city/100454/bangkok-thailand --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Covered in-depth by CNN.[17] Its operations are regularly covered in the news, e.g. the Bangkok Post[18][19][20], Manager[21][22][23][24]. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Paul. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This AFD is ready to be closed by anyone handy with closings, as the nomination has been withdrawn and there are no "delete" !votes. --Doncram (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested PROD. No surviving significant coverage; no reviews available on digital archives. Fails WP:NFILM. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I cannot find any sources on Archive.org's collection. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Does not satisfy film notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I expanded the article and included multiple citations. This 93 year-old film short is mentioned and discussed over and over, especially within the niches of Vitaphone and Judy Garland subjects. It is considered the earliest recording of a Judy Garland performance with her singing solo (at the age of 8) and for that reason alone will continue to be mentioned ad infinitum. It may not be mentioned online by big name media because it is, after all, only about 7 minutes long, it is campy, has horrendous sound quality, and watching it will cause you to either cringe or laugh your head off. Meets WP:NFILM through its 'Other evidence of notability' because it is historically notable and was re-screened in 1996 at New York City's Palace Theatre, and by 'Inclusionary criteria' due to its historical interest re old film technologies and Garland's career milestone. Platonk (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Platonk's additions and rationale. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Sources added by Platonk demonstrate that the film passes criteria 2 of WP:NFILM and more broadly WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Platonk's sources demonstrate the film meets WP:NFO as a historically notable film. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the excellent work done by Platonk. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Temüjin (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Of encyclopedic value? I have my doubts. There are a million forgotten and often dismal video games from the 80s and 90s - is this one worthy of immortality? The PC Gamer mention is a junk source - a mere mention in reference to its pending sales release; the second is ok; the third, dead. Not notable in my mind. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per WP:NEXIST. I was able to find coverage from GameSpot [25], Adventure Gamers [26] and Just Adventure [27] [28] (all sources that are listed as reliable at WP:VG/S). Looking at the game's page on MobyGames, it also seems that there was a review in print magazine Computer Games Magazine. Lowercaserho (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly had a large number of magazine and online reviews per the Mobygames test. The nomination seems WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than motivated by actual WP:BEFORE searching. A bad game does not mean it's not a notable game (I once made Vroom in the Night Sky, which got a Destructoid score of 1/10 but still clearly notable from a Wiki perspective)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This may have some content beyond a passing mention, however snippet view is too limiting for me to tell for sure. I think that this passes WP:GNG due to the sources that Lowercaseho provided; I also find the deletion rationale lacking in policy of notability. The PC gamer source is adequate for its purpose; to cite the release date. Dead sources are also not indications of a lack of notability, as well. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So much passion, so little time. For all the criticism of this nomination, I find it curious that not a single one of the people saying keep seems to have even the slightest inclination to do anything about the sourcing, even after they've gone to the trouble to find what they think are suitable references. Everyone also seems to be forgetting that simply having coverage does not automatically establish notability: that is just the lowest common denominator of what CAN potentially establish notability. However, if there is this much passion to have zombie articles with terrible sourcing littered with clean-up notices and lingering in half-life all over Wikipedia, have at it. Actions speak louder than words though. Maybe consider an edit or two. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for an editor to WP:SOLVE every problem they bring up and asking editors to do that is disingenuous. Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles don't need to be good to exist if someone can prove they ought to exist. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be in the article for the subject to meet notability guidelines. And in practise 99.9% of all articles will get kept if there is sufficient secondary, independent, and relable WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Jumpytoo Talk 22:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that this must prove rather exhaustive in the case of video games, because even the shoddiest productions presumably have a review or two lying around somewhere. Perhaps there need to be separate notability guidelines for the genre. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When making articles, I just go by the WP:GNG, no more, no less. This also applies to any other topic on Wikipedia, whether it be an album few people have heard of or a bridge in the middle of nowhere. Your beef seems to be with the GNG, not with games specifically, because I don't see why games should be more stringent than TV shows, musical albums, or books. Anyone can self publish a book, so it's not like games face different challenges. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:NEXIST as shown by several editors above. Now if someone is actually willing to integrade the sources into the article..... Neo-corelight (Talk) 22:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I dont have the time or experience in VG to fully integrate the sources, but I'll leave the references on the talk page if this closes as a keep. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Poorly-cited article but it passes WP:GNG as other users provided enough evidences for it. Mann Mann (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No valid reason given for deletion. And yes, having coverage is what you need to prove something is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Reliable sources have been found that give it significant coverage, so it passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 10:54, 28 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 argument that the list fails WP:LISTN (for having no sources that discuss the notability of the set of films that have sequels) is far more compelling than the argument that the list has clear inclusion criteria (which is true, but doesn't matter if the grouping itself is indiscriminate or non-notable) or the argument that the list is a useful navigational tool (which is arguably not true, as any article on a notable film will surely link to its sequels). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of feature film series with two entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Indiscriminate, just a list of (hypothetically) every film with a sequel. The other “list of film series by number of entries” articles should probably be bundle-nominated too. In fact, most “list of all series in medium X” articles are probably outdated and should be deleted in favor of categories. Dronebogus (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, essentially a list of sequels alongside their original. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have no love for this list, but in the case of the other ones there are actually many notable film series articles that are listed there, I would not support deleting those, but maybe a major triming of non-notable series.★Trekker (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Sorry if you read the deleted comment, I misread you]. Dronebogus (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA on a completely unsourced page. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and one of the earliest edits to the page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or delete all articles named "List of feature film series with [number] entries". Christian75 (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually suggested that. Dronebogus (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A list of movies and their sequels is not WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE but rather satisfies WP:LISTPURP#Navigation -- this is an easy reference to (and sometimes the only way to learn of) a sequel. This also satisfies WP:CAT. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can easily learn of a sequel by looking up literally any movie on Wikipedia and seeing if the article mentions one. This list is only useful if you wanted to (in theory) see every notable film that has a sequel in one place, which is hypothetically WP:USEFUL to someone but in practice is largely devoid of practical use on top of being far too broad to realistically maintain. Dronebogus (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There are quite a number of movie sequels here that I would have never thought to look up. I'm sure I’m not alone. You might say that's WP:USEFUL but that does not preclude it being WP:LISTPURP#Information -- they overlap quite a bit. Indeed, in order to be WP:5P1 an item must also be "useful" in some way. So saying it's WP:USEFUL is not really a rebuttal, it's just a warning that one needs to "explain why it's useful" rather than rely on simple utility to pass WP:NOTE. And this article does just that, as my original post demonstrated. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clear inclusion criteria, valid navigational link. Keep all the other Category:Lists of film series as well. The nominator once again makes the case he wants to destroy list articles in favor of categories. As explained before in other AFDs he started, that is not a valid reason to delete something. WP:NOTDUPE states Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion. Dream Focus 07:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, lists and categories neither conflict with each other, duplicate each other, nor should one be considered more valuable/useable over the other. As a reader of Wikipedia, I prefer lists. As an editor, I can see why someone might think lists are harder to maintain. However there is no guarantee that categories are more complete than lists. Let those who want to maintain this list do so; otherwise ignore it. Platonk (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously fails WP:LISTN (there is no source discussing feature film series with two entries as being a notable/significant group); and I fail to see what navigational purpose is achieved by specifically grouping film series by number of entries, and making it into a list. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it has clearly defined criteriaJackattack1597 (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether the list is clearly defined is not a relevant criterion here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep not indiscriminate, and is a valid navigation and information list LISTPURP. Lightburst (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (disclosure: here from ANI) Clearly INDISCRIMINATE: I can't imagine this in an actual encyclopedia. Useless for navigation; as said above, movie articles link to their sequels, and that's all that's necessary. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is obviously part of a set – see the nav box (right). It therefore makes no sense to consider this entry in isolation. Movies series are highly notable as entire books are written about them such as The Great Movie Series and the Encyclopedia of Film Themes, Settings and Series. We naturally need indexes for all this material and so the topic passes WP:CLN; WP:LISTPURP; WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDUPE. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Indiscriminate. Unlikely to be a useful source for navigation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NLIST. First off, two do not make a "series". There are lists of film sequels ("35 Sequels Better Than the Original Movie" [Time magazine], "The Greatest Movie Sequels" [Empire magazine]), but they're not restricted to one and only one sequel. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NLIST...and also the fact that quite a few of the 'sequels' on this list did not have original casts or writers involved and were filmed by the studio for crass cash-ins, or have many more than two films. Nate • (chatter) 00:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, that's WP:IDONTLIKE to its core, lol. I mean, I hear you, but a sequel is a sequel regardless how terrible it is. For example, Fast Five was a big reboot, but still counts. Also, making a list with the criteria you are talking about would probably be WP:OR. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes but many more than two films is a legitimate point, admittedly more one for cleanup. Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Andrew provided tangible proof to the articles importance regarding WP:LISTPURP#Navigation (witness the exquisite navbar to your right). This list fulfills many uses, least not WP:LISTN, which says articles that fulfil informational, navigational, or developmental purposes should be kept "regardless of any demonstrated notability." This page could have cascading effects on other lists, so hard to say it's not navigational. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. That infobox navbar is made by someone here, so real-world notability isn't proven by that. Most people do not consider two films a series. For example, film historian Tim Dirks' glossary entry for "series" states, "the term also applies to feature films with more than one sequel; contrast with serials and sequels" (bolding mine). Heck, the infobox navbar even implicitly acknowledges that by putting Sequel in the Related category. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dream Focus. -GorgonaJS (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Duplicate already existing stuff.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Purely indiscriminate list with no clear reason for its existence from an encyclopedic standpoint. It's heavily debatable whether having a sequel marks something as a "series" in the first place, making the article subjective._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Surge 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)

Declined PROD. No indication of notability, no evidence of success in competition. There are one or two purely local mentions in media outside the DCI/DCX/DCA/Maher drum corps universe, nothing indicating significant coverage in independent media. Acroterion (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have created List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps, but am not certain there is enough coverage to justify a merge to that article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bgsu98 (talk) 21:02, 27 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 defunct Drum Corps International member corps. Daniel (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Knights 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)

No evidence of notability, no evidence of success in competition, no sources outside the DCI/DCX/DCA/Maher drum corps universe. Search shows no non-trivial coverage that would establish notability. Acroterion (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps. Not independently notable of DCI. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Qwaiiplayer. Colonestarrice (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan—Trinidad and Tobago relations (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 embassies, agreements, migration. Level of trade is very low at $40,000 for 2018. LibStar (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• You forgot the export from Trinidad and Tobago to Azerbaijan, which "amounted to 71 US dollars". Delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Geschichte (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless this particular diplomatic relationship has received significant coverage in reliable sources, our article that asserts there is a notable relationship is pure original research. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing suggests that this is a notable topic Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Uzbekistan relations (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. An unreferenced article. Even the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs says very little of relations. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless this particular diplomatic relationship has received significant coverage in reliable sources, our article that asserts there is a notable relationship is pure original research. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as the nominator states, there's no real case for having an article here Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andoni Elephant Sanctuary (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 did a search and found a lack of independent, reliable sources that cover the topic. (t · c) buidhe 01:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 01:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 01:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 01:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing in gnews or gbooks. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom: no sources sufficient to establish notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Gazette (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:CS and WP:RS. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: unless otherwise proven, the article must be deleted as it has been lying around for more than a decade without sources (no source notice since 2007). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can verify it exists as my search show links to various Philippine directories but I don't think it is notable enough to warrant an article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as I have been unable to find notable coverage. If someone else is for familiar with the topic and able to find something, it could be resurrected. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 01:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cant see any sense in preserving it. TolWol56 (talk) 00:04, 30 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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