< October 27	October 29 >

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Edward Grant[edit]

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

Vanity page/resume, subject seems to fail the notability guideline (WP:N) Victmich (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not seeing WP:N here. SkippyKR (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ROTM executive with many interests. The good thing is that neither the sources nor the article make a case as why to why he's notable, so everyone's in agreement. Pilaz (talk) 21:34, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wyngz[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:PRODUCT, being a glorified brand name. The USDA has a lot of guidelines for food labeling, in and of themselves I don't think they qualify for notability. All other coverage I found was either just restating the USDA guidelines or aggregating late-night news jokes. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:49, 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. ✗plicit 23:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modzy[edit]

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

It does not meet WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Need more media coverage from reliable sources. Does not meet notability guidelines. Mommmyy (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these items are PR-fluffery. DirkKWilhite (talk) 09:55, 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) 16:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ebstar discography[edit]

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

Ebstar was recently deleted at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebstar), so its discography article is not going to get any more notability than the main article. MarioGom (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for hopefully self-explanatory reasons, or draftify if someone wanted to do that. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should we speedy delete this under G8? As this page is dependent on an article that no longer exists. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 12:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as its an offshoot of another article already deleted. Happy for this to be recreated if a new article is written for Ebstar. NemesisAT (talk) 17:06, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Bromstedt[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSOCCER. A Google search on him provides routine coverage for a non-professional soccer career. GauchoDude (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, benched one time at SKC II = no claim to notability. Geschichte (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:49, 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 merge to Halaib Triangle#History. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The operational to liberal the hala'ib triangle[edit]

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

This only has one source from youtube and I could only find mention in large pdfs. Qwerfjkl talk 21:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not very professionaly written or even titled. There is more substantial content at Halaib Triangle#History as well as the see also links in that article. Geschichte (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Halaib Triangle#History, Egypt–Sudan relations or both if reliable sources can be found. A redirect would have to be kept as well for the edit history, despite the terrible title. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
despite the terrible title it could be moved first. ― Qwerfjkl talk 10:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Halaib Triangle#History, poorly written with minimal content and references and there is valid merge/redirect target. Mztourist (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally garbage article, as evidenced by the mispelled title. There's frankly no good reason to move paragraphs of unsourced/poorly sourced content to the parent article. Let that material naturally accumulate with good sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't have any reliably sourced content, it appears to cover a subject already covered by a component of another article, and this is in need of WP:TNT. If I were to see a redirect from this to Halaib Triangle#History at RfD, I would have likely !voted to delete that along the lines of WP:R3, so I don't see a reason to leave a redirect in place. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Indy beetle and Mikehawk10. Nothing encyclopedic worth preserving via merger in this article, and the redirect left behind is an implausible typo. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keepThe article is about the military operation itself and does not talk about the border conflict as a whole, so I put a source that covered the military operation only, and it needs more development and I will work on this--Ahmed88z (talk) 16:17, 5 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 draftify per WP:ATD-I. Moved to Draft:Illusion Museum Erbil without leaving a redirect. clpo13_(talk) 23:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Illusion Museum Erbil[edit]

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

A non-notable museum with all the references giving more promotion to the museum than anything else about the place. Very little exists about this place online and thus passing GNG is not met. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MUSEUM

Please wait do not delete this page

This Museum is a important museum in Erbil city
May be we can see in future same this article in Wikipedia because this subject for Illusion Museum is a new thing
We are in Wikipedia must writing for everything and every landmark , this Museum is a famous Museum in Erbil City and many tourists visit it
You can put Arabic name for this Museum in Youtube and You see many people visit it
I put Arabic sources
Please wait and do not delete it

Thank you Hamaredha (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Museums guidelines. I see nothing notable about this location. Can see the little information provided within this article merged with Erbil. SkippyKR (talk) 05:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SkippyKR Wait , may be we see more articles for Illusion Museums in future in Wikipedia , this is a new article for this subject . I hope you understand this Hamaredha (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify not yet notable, but this is a good opportunity to incubate as more coverage comes out. It's currently too soon, but believe it will be notable. Star Mississippi 13:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. It might be notable; sources don't have to be in English and it appears to have received some media coverage from regional news outlets (the two independent sources in the article). However, the current state of the article is indicative that the article should be incubated. This seems like a pretty clear case in which to apply WP:ATD-I. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note I think this article is an important and must do not remove it in Wikipedia , Hamaredha (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. Colonestarrice (talk) 21:39, 5 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. Consensus appears to be that the subject meets the criteria of WP:NPROF and that the considerations of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE do not outweigh the notability of the article subject. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Ewel[edit]

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

The subject of this article has requested that the page be deleted; the page was the outcome of an interview conducted as an assignment in an undergraduate course of which I was an instructor, but they have informed me that they did not give the student consent to create a wikipedia page based on the interview. They have contacted me and requested that the page be removed. The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons guidelines state that "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written...with regard for the subject's privacy." They go on to say that "... the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The subject is very distressed that this page is up; in light of that request and the circumstances under which the page was created I feel that this is a reasonable request, especially given that the page was a summary of the persons professional accomplishments and a list of some of their publications. Embruna (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: it appears the student did *not* publish the article without permission; they left it as a draft. After the semester ended a WP admin took the draft and submitted the page for publication. I believe this should have required author approval? Embruna (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, all content added to Wikipedia (including in draft space) is automatically licensed by its author for public use and does not require any additional approval to publish. It is also not the case that subject approval is required for biographies, although WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE allows deletion of marginally-notable people who request privacy. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as It’s not slanderous and is relevant the article should be kept. There are probably many people on here who are not happy they are on here. Passes WP:GNG as this is about an academic. --Rrmmll22 (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because borderline applies: Ewel doesn't seem to satisfy very much of PROF. In any case, the "About Jack" reference is an interview, therefore not reliable, and should be removed. Elemimele (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has heavy citations (WP:PROF#C1; Google Scholar [1] lists three publications with four-digit cite counts, first-author papers with citation counts 962, 835, 433, etc., and h-index over 50), is fellow of the AAAS (WP:PROF#C3), and has been president of the Association for Tropical Biology & Conservation (WP:PROF#C6). Additionally, his book has multiple published reviews (WP:AUTHOR). Additionally, his cv is public [2] and there is a public profile of him more or less equivalent to the important parts of our article at JSTOR 10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000056452. So he passes multiple notability criteria, this is not the kind of borderline case that BLPREQUESTDELETE applies to (really, what it actually says has nothing to do with justifying delete !votes in an AfD; rather, it says that if the consensus of an AfD decided by normal notability criteria is lacking, then the closing admin has discretion to use a different-than-usual default, so since delete votes that cite only BLPREQUESTDELETE do not address the normal notability criteria, they should be ignored in the close), and there appears to be little privacy interest in hiding details of his career that are public elsewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll strike my comment, as I hadn't checked his citation rates, and reading David Eppstein's points, I have to agree I was wrong. It's true there is nothing in that article that's not also in the public domain (and thoroughly harmless). The "About Jack" interview should, however, be removed, as an unreliable source. Elemimele (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fellow of the AAAS and citation record both make this a solid pass of WP:NPROF. I see nothing borderline or marginal about this for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The "About Jack" reference is not an interview, but rather is from the subject's webpage, and is fine for non-controversial basic background facts; at a glance, the usage here seems ok. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who is less experienced with these issues than many here I'm struck by the difference between the arguments based on what we can do vs. what we could or should do. There is no harm done in removing the biography - as has been pointed out, all of the information it contains is available elsewhere. But there is some harm to keeping it - notably to the subject, who has expressed that they are very distressed by its presence (for whatever reason, logical or otherwise). Are there "many people on here who are not happy they are on here"? Possibly, though my guess is they are unhappy because there are things on their page they would prefer others not know. This is a case in which little is gained by keeping it, but we can make the world a better place for one person by removing it - without a global loss of information, since people can get still easily find it elsewhere Embruna (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My case above is that he is so notable that Wikipedia really should have this page. (Fellows of the AAAS generally are!) What are his concerns with the article? He'd certainly be very welcome to make edit requests on the talk page. The current article sometimes has overly many personal details. Perhaps that is the concern? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Embruna:, by definition, everything on wikipedia is available somewhere else. We are here to summarise the world for anyone who wants a balanced overview in one place, and we're harming our readers if we prune out genuinely notable people. David Eppstein's point is that we only take the subject's wishes into consideration if they are sitting on the edge of non-notability, and he's made a good case that Ewel isn't. On the other hand, the case is for Ewel's scientific career, not for his personal details, so they can be trimmed out. It's very hard to be an influential scientist and remain anonymous. Only poor old William_Sealy_Gosset is still best remembered by his pseudonym. Elemimele (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, @Elemimele: and appreciate the tenor of the discussion. I also hope it's clear that I'm in an unusual position in that the very reason a student was working on this was because we think the subject merits recognition. Essentially, I agree with everyone here regarding the notability criteria, but find myself advocating for deletion out of deference to and respect for the subject and his wishes. For me, at least, it's complicated. That said, thanks again.Embruna (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to removing the non-career-related details from the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable per WP:NPROF and he should be represented in Wikipedia, the article should be pruned of statements that are not verifiable (but I dont see much of that).--hroest 20:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NPROF is met, and not remotely "marginally". JoelleJay (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes multiple criteria of WP:PROF, when only one would be necessary. Fellows of the AAAS are generally noteworthy enough that failing to cover them does count as a hole in our encyclopedia. Overly personal details can be trimmed, if necessary; I cut a half-sentence about his family and residence to keep the article focused on his career. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously notable, on many criteria. The subject’s concerns should be dealt with seriously, but deletion, no. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there is some revision deletion in the history. I wonder whether the subject’s concerns have already been dealt with? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe:, unfortunately the subject's request is total deletion, so that will be unlikely. But removal of personal details may help.Embruna (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think there is a tension here between WP:PROF and who is a public figure. This is an easy pass of WP:PROF as many have explained above. However, the question in WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is whether the subject is largely a "relatively unknown, non public figure." The subject did not hold a named professorship, is a co-author or editor of the published books, his fellowship is, as XOR'easter describes, "generally notable," and citation record is a criteria that is used as an alternative to WP:GNG to determine if an academic is notable. So, we have a subject that may meet WP:AUTHOR but in general would not meet WP:GNG in the absence of WP:PROF. To me, this puts the subject squarely into the "relatively unknown, non public figure" realm. --Enos733 (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing about the AAAS fellowship, there is no comprehensive list of fellows on Wikipedia. While it may be a "hole in our encyclopedia," again, the question is whether the subject is a "relatively unknown, non public figure," not about notability. Also, in 2019 and 2020, there were over 400 fellows elected each of those two years. --Enos733 (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are misinterpreting BLPREQUESTDELETE. The question of whether the subject is "relatively unknown, non public" is one for the closer of the AfD, in determining what to do if there is no consensus on whether the subject is notable. That does not affect the responsibility of the participants in the AfD of determining whether the subject meets our notability criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are on the same page - WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE allows deletion of marginally-notable people who request privacy. The question is whether this subject is in your words "marginally-notable," or as the policy states a "relatively unknown, non public figure." My contention is that most university professors and researchers are relatively unknown figures (irregardless of how many criteria of WP:PROF they pass). That is, the presumption I have when a subject requests deletion, the burden is to show that a subject is a public figure (such as a state or federal elected official where there is news coverage of the subject). --Enos733 (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22000+ citations disagree with you. The job of a university professor is to be famous in a narrow area. The subject here has succeeded admirably (indeed, in a slightly broader context, per the AAAS fellowship). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. For many, if not most, university professors, research comes second to teaching. However, the question is not success, but to what degree the subject is a "relatively unknown, non public figure." This standard is not tied to any SNG, but to a general audience. --Enos733 (talk) 18:24, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deniz Özlem[edit]

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

Özlem's career consists of playing one game 11 years ago and seemingly nothing else. By consensus, this is only a weak presumption of notability. Google News and DDG searches in Bulgarian yield absolutely nothing about this particular Denislav Stoyanov. Likewise, Google News and DDG failed to yield any useful results when searching using his Turkish name. Plenty of results about 'Deniz Özlem Durmaz' but no relevant results about this mostly-amateur footballer with one game to his name. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL. Geschichte (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I found no sources in my own search to make it pass GNG. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 12:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:41, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Nuhić[edit]

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

According to my searches, he has never played in any of the top 3 German leagues, so falls short of WP:NFOOTBALL. A German source search as well as Google searches come back with nothing that could count towards WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim to notability. Geschichte (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject appears to fail WP:GNG based on my search. GauchoDude (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:41, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Woolfire Festival[edit]

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

Non-notable festival. No significant coverage per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 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 no consensus. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ARS Public School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No relevant coverage found. And per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools, schools are not presumed to be notable because they exist. They have to satisfy WP:ORG and WP:N The Banner talk 18:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am having trouble understanding what has changed since the last AfD. The RFC on school outcomes concluded in February 2017 and the first AfD on this article concluded in October of 2017. I read through the previous AfD and I stuck on User:DGG's rational. My question concerns this AfD. Is this AfD in hopes of finding a new WP:CONLIMITED?
Pinging participants from AfD1 from 3 years ago. @Mark the train, Necrothesp, Kudpung, Cordless Larry, Winged Blades of Godric, Adamgerber80, Verbcatcher, Chris troutman, Jéské Couriano, J947, Pinkbeast, DreamLinker, and Just Chilling: Lightburst (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (because I was pinged, otherwise I am retired from Wikipedia's characteristic drama-for-the-sake-of-drama). The fact is that nothing has changed since the 1st AfD four years ago almost to the day. History will firmly demonstrate the nominator's years-long predilection for listing schools at Afd - often around the year end / new year period. That said, the much vaunted RfC by AfD proposers was indeed inconclusive. This very low-traffic school article is hardly one that is likely to attract much attention on en.Wiki. This relisting to overturn Ritchie333's previous closeure is therefore a clear attempt to see if a new batch of ¡voters would have a different opinion: WP:CONLIMITED, and it's not even a case of WP:CCC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Brilliant how you ignore the content but start a rant against the nominator to deflect that. The Banner talk 07:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per myself four years ago. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking over the past AfD 99% of the keep votes amounted to bickering over if the RfC was valid or not without any actual analysis of the sources that were available at the time. One person did say they re-wrote the article, but admitted themselves that it still wasn't notable, but probably would be with the addition of offline sources. Which it appears never materialized. Looking over it now there is nothing in the article or that I could find elsewhere that make it notable. Since the references in the article are all extremely trivial and (or) primary. I couldn't find anything else that wasn't either. I'm more then happy to change my vote to keep if someone can find WP:THREE in-depth, secondary sources though. Good luck with that ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't participated much in school AfDs recently, but my impression from observing them casually is that since four years ago, the consensus has swung further towards insisting on the need for them to meet the notability criteria as any other article would. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kept at the last AfD, which took place after the controversial RfC. Like Lightburst and Kudpung, I am struggling to see what has changed since then. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons discussed in the first nomination. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This page on the school's website appears to show multiple newspaper reports concerning the school. I don't understand the language that they are written in and I don't know whether the original sources are reliable. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject isn't notable but that doesn't matter because Wikipedia is a fan project and we choose sides rather than make objective decisions. I'm not casting a !vote per WP:CANVASS. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chris Troutman I have been involved in several other AfDs where participants from a previous AfD are pinged - especially if it was relatively recent. I have pinged all of the participants - everyone but the closer. I think canvassing involves calling in others to ivote a certain way. Lightburst (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should have pinged the closer too because in my humble opinion he made an error while closing by not taking the named RFC in account and discount most of the keep-votes. The Banner talk 19:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333:

Done

Pings don't work if you don't sign your comment, Lightburst. FYI, Ritchie333. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I got the ping, and I haven't looked into the issue in-depth, but just to remind people that consensus can change so starting a second AfD I previously found a "keep" consensus for is not in and of itself disruptive. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I see now that Kudpung already pinged you before Lightburst tried. Anyway, I agree on your assessment of the validity of a second AfD. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, albeit weakly. I'm seeing some significant coverage of the school in the sources in the article, but only from one organization (The Telegraph). Per a 2017 RfC, schools aren't presumed notable just because they exist. Therefore, per WP:N, they need to either meet the WP:GNG or a subject notability guideline (such as WP:ORG). That 2017 RfC's closing summary also states Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. I don't really see discussion on that for now, and it's likely that many local publications are going to be non-English. An editor in the previous AfD identified this source as significant coverage; I'm not quite sure of that, though it affirms that the school does (or did) have basketball as a sport. Some of the tone issues can be resolved by means other than deletion, and I have attempted to do so in my edit. However, in the absence of anybody claiming to have done a thorough search of print and/or local media regarding this school, though at least one editor found a page on the school's website that contains screenshots of print articles that the school claims are about it. While I can't read the language those local news articles are written in, some of the articles at minimum contain a photograph that includes an English-language sign containing the name of the school, so it doesn't look like the articles are totally frivolous. I lean towards presuming notability given that it's received some coverage from at least one national or large regional outlet and it appears to have received significant coverage from multiple local outlets. If anybody can read those articles, it would be helpful in determining the extent of WP:SIGCOV, but I can't think of doing anything but keeping it given what's been presented. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We must note that consensus can change. No participants in this discussion seem to have addressed the concerns of the nominator (edit conflict so I didn't see Mike's participation before posting this) and have just pointed to the last AfD. I cannot find any sources giving notability so am leaning towards delete but haven't done enough research into this to be sure. I would also ask the closer to seriously consider why participants in the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) (including one who was recently banned from AfD) are taking such an interest in this. As much as I want to assume good faith, I think this may be due to the article and wikiproject sharing the same initials. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RUNOFTHEMILL school lacks coverage of events that would meet WP:NORG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @MrsSnoozyTurtle:, have you examined the sources available here and found that they are all WP:MILL? If so, would you be willing to describe what they each say? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mikehawk10. This !vote is a result of checking the sources in the article. Which specific events (and supporting independent sources) do you believe establish notability for the school? I am happy to reconsider, of course. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MrsSnoozyTurtle. My point is more that the RfC on schools said that [b]ecause extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. We appear to have found some local print media at that source, though as I've stated above I can't actually read it. I'm wondering if you're able to analyze the local print media listed there, or if your WP:MILL rationale is based solely on the English-language sources otherwise presented above. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like you, I can't read it. The titles suggest it is largely routine events but I am happy to reconsider if someone is able to provide specific quotes. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, a parallel discussion here. If interested, you need to expand the "Extended discussion" as someone has now decided to put this behind a curtain. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the relevance of that? The Banner talk 12:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your silence is golden. Let the voters and closer decide. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be bullied into giving an answer on an irrelevant question at an irrelevant place. Please stop it. The Banner talk 16:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. The reverts and cover up there are telling. Streisand effect. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to have ample print coverage as shared by Verbcatcher. NemesisAT (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NemesisAT. Which quote from the print coverage makes you confident that it is not WP:ROUTINE? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to read these sources, given this I'd rather err on the side of caution and assume that that they are SIGCOV. It wouldn't be right IMO to delete an article when we know there are sources available, purely because we are unable to access or read said sources. NemesisAT (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you are just gambling that it are proper sources? The Banner talk 23:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidently regular coverage in newspapers. I wouldn't call that "gambling" and newspapers are likely to be "proper sources". NemesisAT (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources, could you please add them? The Banner talk 09:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you've linked to Wikipedia:Notability (events) which doesn't appear to be an appropriate guideline here. NemesisAT (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article needs to prove its notability using sources. I don't think it is sufficient to base this on a web page which may establish notability if we don't know what it actually says. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:47, 7 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. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza Bouazzaoui[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hamza Bouazzaoui

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

Nasty bits (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep article relevant to encyclopediaNasty bits (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1. If you want to object to a proposed deletion, remove the tag from the page yourself. No longer relevant, obviously. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC); changed 17:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I previously proposed this for deletion with the following reason: No notable sports accomplishments (see also WP:NATHLETE) and his cause of death is tragic but not a reason to have an article - Simeon (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the runner is remarkable, he meets all the qualities to have an entry in the encyclopedia as much as a serial murderer is like Masten Wanjala, just the fact of having murdered 10 children, taking drugs, and drinking their blood makes him worthy to have a ticket here because Hamza Bouazzaoui is notNasty bits (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is not a shred of notability towards meeting WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So Masten Wanjala if it is remarkable only for the fact of taking drugs, killing and drinking the added human blood of which he was imprisoned ????Nasty bits (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Forget about Masten Wanjala already. This discussion is not about Masten Wanjala. Geschichte (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the athlete has been covered entirely for his death, which while tragic, falls under WP:BLP1E. Otherwise, the subject fails WP:NTRACK. Also, Masten Wanjala is obviously only notable for being a serial killer, you will get media coverage if you kill a dozen people and drink their blood, it's why we have an article on Jeffrey Dahmer. AryKun (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Subject fails WP:NATHLETE and WP:BASIC criteria. The whole Masten Wanjala argument is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Colonestarrice (talk) 21:41, 5 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. Sources provided are of low-value and article do not meet WP:GNG. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minotaur Hotel[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NRVE. Current sources do not indicate notability, and a search for sources gives either mirrors of the MQGF, or passing mentions. Kotaku article may be the only thing that can be a reliable source, but I am unsure of its significant coverage; it does say the game exists, but only in one paragraph. It was given one Bronze award from a games festival.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:WhoAteMyButter
https://minoh.itch.io/				✘ No
https://minoh.itch.io/minotaur-hotel				✘ No
https://wiki.minotaur.gay/index.php			FANDOM wiki, has semi-detailed information	✘ No
http://mqgf.com.au/				✘ No
https://twitter.com/queergamesfest/status/1445678925070274564				✘ No
https://www.kotaku.com.au/2021/10/9-great-indies-from-this-years-melbourne-queer-games-festival/			~ I can't tell if coverage is significant or not	~ Partial
https://mrhands.substack.com/p/naughty-list-25		Blog, no editorial oversight		✘ No
https://periodicos.ufac.br/index.php/tropos/article/view/3958/2451			Does not talk about game in any detail according to citation number	✘ No
https://repositorio.ufmg.br/handle/1843/36963			Does not talk about the game. The study does talk about the game's author, but not the game itself. Does not contain SC of the game.	✘ No
https://www.ohhey.gay/blog/minotaur-hotel	~ Source is an interview, most writing is primary. Commentary is secondary.	Blog that has no clear editor	The significant coverage is self-published, from the author. Aside from a mention of the game in commentary, the questions themselves do not establish significance.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 04:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 04:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added extra sources to the main article, some extra information from said sources,including the dissertations where the game was cited and featured,I'm doing my best since I don't speak portuguese, I'll add some extra information when I have the time to improve the article.
Question how's the game own wiki not considered significant coverage? MCarlos (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. Even so, it wouldn't count as a reliable source regardless because it's not independent nor is it reliable. It's a wiki, and falls under the same category as FANDOM. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 23:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to improve the article with all the other sources that I cited in this discussion in the next couple days, they are a mix of dissertations, thesis and articles talking about the game. MCarlos (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as for verifiable sources

the game was cited in a thesis publication for the Minas Gerais university

I did not add it to the main article, because I can read very little Portuguese (page 5 ref. 10)

https://periodicos.ufac.br/index.php/tropos/article/view/3958/2451

the author was also featured in the https://www.ohhey.gay/ site https://www.ohhey.gay/blog/minotaur-hotel

this is an example of you need X years of experience for the position, but anyone will give you a chance to get the experience

the game was also cited 7 times in this dissertation https://repositorio.ufmg.br/handle/1843/36963 the problem is the same as before, I can read very little Portuguese

the game was featured in this article https://mrhands.substack.com/p/naughty-list-25

and the author (not the game) was interviewed in this article https://mrhands.substack.com/p/chunky-men-and-the-people-who-love

the main problem with the game is that it's not an US-centric game about a niche thematic coming from a marginalized community, but it's still a valid addition

another factor to consider in matters of WP:GNG, this game is a non-profit project in a for-profit world, they won't get a massive coverage because they aren't looking for money or clients, I see that a very aggressive point to make when the original author isn't looking for money or publicity, the coverage they got was mostly people going out of their way to feature the project, not because they were being paid to do it MCarlos (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate, but, if a subject won't get much coverage because it is small and it's niche, then why does it need a Wikipedia article about it? If sources won't cover it because it's niche, why does that mean that we must cover it instead? BUTITEXISTS. The existence of a subject does not mean it is notable. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 03:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear fail of WP:GNG, barely received coverage from the gaming press._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
how can a request for an article that is somewhat well written be fulfilled when you have an article in the similar vein that looks like this stay

Raptor Boyfriend

and even articles like this, half of the references are the own game kickstarter Coming Out on Top the news coverage is only used for the reception

article with a single reference akin to kotaku Animamundi: Dark Alchemist

sourceless: Sukisho

again, single SELF reference Zettai Fukuju Meirei

yes, this is a new game and it's even under development still, it won't get a lot of coverage

I'm sorry, but not every game needs to be reviewed by some AAA newspaper, specially when they are niche and indie and specially when they are from marginalized groups

my plan was to write articles for all of the games listed in Melbourne Queer Games Festival, but I haven't played many of them, but if I have to find a big newspaper article for each of them, it's a pointless task, since many of them are by small indie developers, not by some studio that gets news coverage MCarlos (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, for a response to that please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As for your argument that "it won't get a lot of coverage", see WP:TOOSOON. Once it gets a lot of coverage, it's fine to appear on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is NOT an advertising platform to assist in getting that coverage if it doesn't already have it, nor is it an advocacy platform for any specific group (WP:NOTADVOCACY). _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to use those two arguments as my base for anything, my point was that, there are weaker articles that are citing there just because people dropped a bunch of sources and nothing else in projects that were for-profit and nobody batted an eye, see my other thread in the discussion so you can see the game has the coverage in other languages, the problem is that for this discussion people will only consider valid English sources

the game has been cited more than once in Brazilian universities thesis and dissertations, but I don't speak Portuguese, I made the article in English because it's the language I speak MCarlos (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is untrue, people absolutely will consider other language sources. I have used Japanese and European sources fairly often to prove notability. If you have found sources in Portugese then they are very much presentable as evidence. That said, with the dearth of coverage in the gaming press, they'd probably have to be fairly significant and numerous, which seems unlikely.

More likely this is an example of WP:TOOSOON and we are better off waiting for the game's release. There is WP:NORUSH to make an article about it.

It's most likely "nobody batted an eye" simply because no eyes were on the article in the first place. Anyone can make an article, and not everyone checks what articles have been made daily for non-notable ones, there are way too few people for that._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the problem is that I don't speak Portuguese and I don't want to rely in stuff like google translate to extract the information, since they are thesis and dissertations with overly technical language MCarlos (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unsure about that, then it is probably a better idea to wait until there are sufficient English language sources. I am not fluent in Portugese either, but simply being cited is not the same as a dissertation written about the subject. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know because dissertation have English abstracts and they popup right away in google, the dissertations are about LGTB topics in video games for a gender studies dissertation and a data algorithms dissertation, and the citations link to the game devlog that it's in English more or less, explaining what's being written in the dissertation, I posted all that in a previous comment in the discussion MCarlos (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the source assessment table. In short, the new sources still do not count towards GNG about the game. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 23:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the SA Table with the interview blog. It does not qualify either. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 02:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current sources do not indicate notability as they are either self-published (such as an inteview), not reliable (such as a fan-wiki), or not significant coverage (like a listing for something). Searching for sources does not bring any that meet WP:V or WP:RS. Article fails WP:GNG and the summary of WP:NGAME. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 02:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the noms analysis of the sources, and did not find any sources otherwise that are significant. To note, there is significant coverage of a different game with the same name in a textbook and a museum's magazine. Jumpytoo Talk 04:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy if we want to be generous. This seems promotional, and the game isn't even released yet, WP:TOOSOON case at best. Few niche references mention this, mostly in passing, the closer we get to SIGCOV the less reliable and independent the sources become. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article and sources do not establish notability. Avilich (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nom's rationale and excellent source assessment. Does not meet notability requirements. Pilaz (talk) 15:02, 5 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. The evidence of notability provided by the keep voters is convincing. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Ari Fuld[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, no lasting impact. Flurry of news articles when it happened, flurry at the funeral, flurry at conviction. Like pretty much every other attack or even most crimes in most first world countries. nableezy - 20:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC) 20:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. nableezy - 20:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC) 20:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. nableezy - 20:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC) 20:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. nableezy - 20:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC) 20:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. nableezy - 20:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC) 20:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meet WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH(for example[3] also mentioned in scholarly books [4] [5] and articles [6] there is also a lot of Google Scholars links[7] some behind paywall =--Shrike (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It helps if you put the scholar search term in quotes. You find 2730 sources turns in to 12. Among them several from yutorah.org and a newspaper report. nableezy - 21:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It still give enough references to establish notability as per our policies Shrike (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is very much not a policy. WP:NOTNEWS is. nableezy - 16:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and its meets this policy per links that I showed earlier Shrike (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a common murder for the occupied territory or anywhere else. Lightburst (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst I have brought several sources that establish is not routine and have some WP:LASTING effect as per our polices Shrike (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mentioned in international press WP:INDEPTH too [[8],[9] and also some WP:LASTING [10] --Shrike (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most stabbings between Israelis and Palestinians are briefly covered in the international press. Its still a couple of news cycles. And yes, it is "mentioned" in some sources. That isnt being covered in them. nableezy - 21:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then per our polices those that meets Wikipedia:DIVERSE should be kept. Is not was you claimed that it was established practice in the that such articles that covered in international press is notable? Shrike (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ive pretty consistently said that they dont belong. If it is just a news story it does not belong here. This is a news story. And no, that does not meet diverse, because the coverage must be "must be significant and not in passing". This does not have that. nableezy - 21:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well here you say something different I think [11] Shrike (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should read that diff. Particularly where it says Per that established precedent. I am opposed to all of these articles. But so long as Israeli victims of what is fairly routine violence are covered then that standard should be applied equally. I have always been opposed to all these articles. But if you and other editors are able to maintain a standard that I feel is not actually in keeping with WP:NOTNEWS then I will ask it be applied equally. Oh, and you voted to delete there. (And that article actually had in depth sustained coverage, with the AP giving it in depth coverage some 8 months later) nableezy - 21:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also in these case there are WP:LASTING effects that lead to legislation of Pay to Slay law --Shrike (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the article notes, that legislation was already on the books. nableezy - 21:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. KidAd • SPEAK 01:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH indeed. Google books links are also within the scope of said guidelines.BabbaQ (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Palestinian man became the 100th Palestinian citizen of Israel killed by gun violence this year so we need 100 articles for those people just this year? I don't think we do and we don't need this one either.Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there is same coverage of WP:DIVERSE and mentioning in books then my answer is yes. Shrike (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS makes that rationale for deletion mute. Other peoples relevance has no bearing on the relevance of Ari Fuld, neither does 100 or 20 other Palestinians. BabbaQ (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a case of JUSTAMURDER which happens every day in almost all 195 countries. A relevant essay to apply WP:MILL. Or are some victims more important than others? Probably acknowledge that Selfstudier has a good point. Lightburst (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If other murders highlighted in international press mentioned in books and scholarly articles they should probably get an article Shrike (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do one now for Khalil Jabarin, he must have been mentioned every time Ari Fuld was mentioned, right?Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article about event not person if you have something add about the convicted murderer go ahead if you think that he deserve separate article then go ahead I will not WP:AFD these article. Shrike (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You got my drift then, it's not about an event, it's a memorial, Netanyahu's funeral tweet and Kemp adulation. So much not news, hard to find the news.Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sometimes Terrorist attacks even of a single individual deserve an article. For example, during times of turmoil such as the Second Intifada or the 2015–2016 wave of violence in Israeli–Palestinian conflict individual attacks may deserve their own article becuase they are part of something bigger (like a small battle during a big war). But Ari Fuld was murdered outside any framework. His murder isn't really different than most other terrorist attacks. A Jew is killed by a Palestinian, the IDF destroy the house of the attacker's family, the attacker (if alive) is put on trial and gets a life sentence, end of the story. It is a good story for the media but in Wikipedia there's not much to do with it. So per WP:MEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS there's no need for this article. The Murder of Eitam and Na'ama Henkin is extremely notable becuase it is from the Israeli perspective the beginning of two years of increased violence between Israel and the Palestinians.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that the other murder is notable and worthy of staying, but not this one. Solely taking a quick look at the sources, and not making any personal judgments about the time frame, Ari Fuld's murder seems at least as notable. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I said exactly how I came to the conclusion that the murder of Eitam and Na'ama Henkin is notable. The fact that there was a lot of coverage is not enough to justify the article's creation. It is no more than a tragedy, and tragedies happen all the time. And just because the media likes to talk about tragedies, it doesn't mean that every tragedy that gets new coverege deserves its own article. I say this after long and difficult discussions about the deletions of articles concerning the tragedies of Palestinians killed by IDF soldiers, which didn't deserve an article, but pro-Palestinians made the same arguments, that every business that calls itself a newspaper has decided to talk about it and I don't think that becuase many media sources worldwide has some bias towards Palestinian narrative, we should let them dictate what is notable and what is not.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, there are murders all of the time. Most murder victims don't have the international press putting up articles like: "Who was Ari Fuld?" and "Israel mourns Ari Fuld." This murder seems particularly notable and so it should stay. As for WP:NOTNEWS, it doesn't seem to apply here, as this is not "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities." -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be ignoring the For example at the start of that sentence. You know, when one gives a not complete list of things that qualify. Not when one gives a complete list of things that are included. "Israel mourns" every victim Israeli-Jewish victim in the long running Israeli-Palestinian conflict, theres a whole section of the MFA website about them. This however is not an arm of the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs. This was as routine as any other murder. And the coverage in the news was indeed routine. nableezy - 17:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source is not MFA site but WP:DIVERSE international press, books and articles this is more then enough to make the even notable --Shrike (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand what you are replying to, but it does not appear to resemble a reply to anything I wrote. nableezy - 17:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's about the killing of an activist, which is pretty notable on its own. Furthermore, it was well covered by the international press, it caused a bit of an international incident, and it lead to a case that went up to the Israeli Supreme court. OtterAM (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - it is a relatively recent event, so hard to judge lasting impact, but got plenty of international coverage when it happened and more coverage when the murderer was convicted, which is not routine. It is also mentioned in several books (e.g: [12], [13]. There's also a a charitable organization bearing his name that is dedicated to his legacy - https://arifuld.org/our-mission/, which gets coverage. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is roughly split between "keep" and "delete". More input is required from other people to gauge which, if any, views have consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. WP:NOTNEWS is being misapplied here; while a lot of murders are routine, most murders do not draw sustained international news coverage, and this story is not written like a news report. I would also caution against WP:IDONTLIKEIT: this is a contentious political subject, which I suspect is influencing some of the votes here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NCRIME notes that media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, and there is evidence above that the media coverage is in-depth from a diversity of independent reliable sources. There are a few naked appeals to WP:NOTNEWS, saying that murders happen all the time. But, murders typically don't get broad international coverage; the coverage of this killing doesn't appear to indicate that it's a mere WP:DOGBITESMAN-level incident. Rather, it appears to be a crime that has international significance and coverage in line with point 2 (and possibly point 1) of WP:EVENTCRIT. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Event lacks evidence of a WP:SUSTAINED impact. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @MrsSnoozyTurtle:, what about this Jerusalem Post piece? This seems to be in line with WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. It also seems to have had at least some impact on US-Israeli relations in the state of Florida, and it appears to have caused a tax collection change in the Israel-Palestine area. The IDF also appears to have bulldozed some homes in response to the stabbing, which gained continuing coverage. This seems to be one of those stabbings that actually triggered a significant government response outside of the ordinary legal mechanisms for trying someone for murder. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of those things are routine in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. nableezy - 16:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have special policy for I/P conflict. This was major event covered by International press and that enough per our policies. Shrike (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No special policy required, not news, not at all.Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its meets WP:NCRIME like was shown earlier Shrike (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All NCRIME arguments are based on a guideline and are trumped by policy. Routine actions following murders do not make a murder notable. There were over 440 murders in New York City last year. Do you know how many have articles? nableezy - 17:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per nableezy, I believe that WP:NOTNEWS is applicable here. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:35, 6 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. clpo13_(talk) 23:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thelxis Theohari[edit]

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

The sources, (all in Greek) don't show any indication that this artist meets our notability criteria. There is mention of creating "the original reliefs for modern and ancient coins", which seems a bit strange; how does one design "ancient" coins"? Vexations (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are mostly press releases, listings, or autobiographical. The rest mention her only in passing, or they just verify some facts of her CV, like that she is teaching in a private art school. There is no in-depth covarage of her work. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article feels like adcruft and the sources aren't WP:SIGCOV from independent RS. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:37, 5 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) 16:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meyer, Franklin County, Illinois[edit]

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

Another isolated rail junction, not a notable community. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Mangoe (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable rail junction. –dlthewave ☎ 15:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't appear to gain notability as a populated place through WP:GEOLAND, so WP:SIGCOV is likely required. A search through newspapers.com, Proquest, and Gale do not indicate that the rail junction has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. I was able to find more news coverage of a late 1800s elopement between a woman and an "Illinois railroad man" with the last name of Meyer than coverage of the station. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:34, 5 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. The picture could perhaps be used someplace though! Geschichte (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isha Borah[edit]

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

Doesn't qualify WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable run of the mill blogger. All the sources that mention her seem to be sponsored coverage and do not demonstrate notability as an independent and reliable coverage.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is promotional fluff. Mccapra (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL blogger. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:15, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. K.D.Shendge English Medium School[edit]

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

No indication of notability, fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES AryKun (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's zero references in the article and nothing came up for me in a search. So there's absolutely nothing that is notable about this. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:19, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kegley, Illinois[edit]

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

I did find a photo of the station, but as far as I can tell that building constituted the entirety of this "community". Searching found nothing of substance beyond the photo. Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot see a relevant redirect, I did not find any historical references in newspapers. The station is a nice historic photo, the topo map does not reveal any life. Lightburst (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability for this rail stop. –dlthewave ☎ 15:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Franklin County, Illinois where it is already in the list of unincorporated places. It would have to be unlinked, moved to a new section "Other named locations": Kegley, a former rail depot on Illinois Central Railroad,^[1] located on Illinois Route 34 1 mile (1.6 km) southeast of Thompsonville. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 04:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://southernillinoisrailroads.com/icdepots/kegley-illinois-central-railroad-station.html

Delete. Newspapers.com, Proquest, and Gale each come up with zero mentions of a place by the name of "Kegley, Illinois". There does not actually appear to have been a human settlement here, so it doesn't appear to gain presumed notability via WP:GEOLAND. There being a single photograph on what appears to be a self-published railroad enthusiast's site does not establish that the place was an inhabited human settlement; a single railroad station floating in the middle of farmland does not meet this qualification. At the end of the day, the sources that we have for the name "Kegley, Illinois" is a comment written by an unknown individual on top of a photograph and a self-published website that hosts it, as well as USGS—these don't feel like a reliable source for the purpose of determining this as a notable populated place—and the photo is an extremely primary source. And, absent WP:SIGCOV, there's no way that this is notable. A redirect to what appears to be a blip that has never received any coverage outside of a single photograph published in a blog doesn't seem warranted, so I would oppose the creation of a redirect. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:29, 5 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 14:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caffe Dolce (Vacaville, California)[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. Local coffee shop. Lacks in-depth sig coverage in RS. MB 14:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MB 14:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MB 14:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable local coffee shop. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Critical lack of coverage in RS. Pilaz (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since an editor has made substantial contributions to find sources for this article, specifically from the Vacaville Reporter, I would like to add a supplementary explanation as to why I have not changed my mind. The other articles from the Vacaville Reporter covering the coffeeshop it in its short lifespan only unfortunately provide trivial mentions, with the exception of the 1993 article, which is dedicated to this specific coffeeshop and to another one. Unfortunately, as WP:AUD reminds us, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. No other sources seem to cover this business. In my opinion, there is insufficient notability to pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, especially in light of the fact that it cannot inherit notability from dubiously notable artists visiting it (WP:INHERITORG). I remain convinced that this article should be deleted. Pilaz (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourcing that indicates that this establishment was particularly notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Caffe Dolce was featured prominently in a 1993 article in the Vacaville Reporter regarding the emerging coffeehouse scene in Vacaville, Solano County, and the Bay Area in the early 1990s. The citation, which has since been added to the wikipedia page, is not available online (as many past Vacaville Reporter articles are not currently online). Zacharyfruhling (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 07:21, 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Edward Lozeron[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Sourcing relies heavily on blogs and passing mentions. The interviews don’t contribute to notability and reliability is an issue with the majority of the blog sources. Eternal Shadow Talk 22:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eternal Shadow Talk 22:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eternal Shadow Talk 22:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - First of all, I really don't agree with the nominator's opinion. Collaborating with a Grammy Award winner (Skip Martin) on an album, and with the famous Mims (rapper), and with ZaZa Maree and many other well-known artists would be more than to make a musician pass WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and way more. Please review the sources again and see for yourself if they are just "blogs."

The discography is very extensive, and his albums and singles have lots of press. Clearly a notable artist.

This is very in-depth: http://music-overload.com/artist-to-watch-up-and-coming-electronic-djproducer-jackel/
https://mix247edm.com/behind-the-beat-redefining-sound-with-jackel/ This is an interview, but there is one entire paragraph of independent info from the writer
Also in-depth: https://weraveyou.com/2021/02/jackel-is-starting-out-2021-with-some-fresh-beats/
Mostly in-depth as well https://sparxentertainment.com/2015/01/21/uncensored-featuring-jackel-presented-by-sparx-entertainment/
In-depth too: https://www.iwantedm.com/2019/04/jackel-and-his-motley-crew/

You can see that all of the above certainly aren't passing mentions.

Plus, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of very similar artists of similar notability on Wikipedia.

Undeniably notable and should be kept.

Iceball7heavens (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant news coverage exists from several reliable EDM publications. Boredathome101 (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that there are plenty of significant news on this one, specially the ones provided by Iceball7heavens. Mommmyy (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: most of those sources are not reliable ones, they are news aggregators, or collective blogs, so they won't pass WP:RS. Also, if this article is kept, it needs to be renamed to JackEL per WP:COMMONNAME. Richard3120 (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has played at Electric Daisy Carnival which is the largest EDM US festival, and perhaps the largest in the world, although this is my personal argument and not notability guidline. If we were to base it on WP:MUSICBIO, he meets criterion 4 for playing in USA and Canada and also possibly Criterion #6 with his collaboration with Skip Martin, Grammy Awards winner. Finally, there is more than enough in-depth coverage in several industry publications. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Playing at Electric Daisy Carnival isn't a big indication of notability, as DJs around the world play on the bill of festivals – I have several friends who have played at Glastonbury, Bestival, Boomtown and other dance festivals in the UK, and none of them are anywhere near notable. They've also played in the USA, Spain, Serbia and other countries, so by your criteria they would meet point 4 of WP:MUSICBIO. And I definitely think you've completely misinterpreted point 6 – making a non-notable album with a Grammy winner is an inherited notability, they aren't a regular group together. Richard3120 (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Playing EDC is a big deal. There are very few festivals of that caliber in the EDM world. But I did mention that I wasn't using that as a criteria for keeping. Subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. Webmaster862 (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as he has played at a huge festival.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject appears to meet WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:44, 5 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. ✗plicit 14:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilingual pun[edit]

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

This, clearly, is not an article about billingual puns, it is a list of examples of billingual puns, most of the sourcing is not from reliable sources, (I removed two already that were sourced to... wait for it.. Instagram) but that doesn't even matter since all that is sourced form them is the puns themselves. As this manifestly is not actually an encyclopedia article, it should not exist. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bilingual puns and bilingual wordplay are the subject of scholarly writing ([14], [15], [16], etc). It's beyond my ability to summarize that stuff, but there is a lot that could potentially be said about the topic. Zagalejo (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the entire ridiculousness of "examples" save for one straightforward example. There probably is enough coverage to justify an article, but I don't care enough to look for it. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in this case my reasoning is not really about notability. It's entirely possible a decent encyclopedia article could be written on this subject, but what we have is so bad it would be better to have nothing and leave it as a redlink to encourage creation of a proper article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Macaronic language, which is the next-most-general topic, which provides good historical-linguistic context, and which is a better focus for an article. --Lockley (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, I'd be ok with that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been trimmed down from the ridiculous state that it was in when nominated, and the topic itself seems notable based on sources linked by Zagalejo as well as [17] [18] and [19]. I think a redirect/merge to Macaronic language would be too ambiguous since macaronic language refers to all uses of mixed language, not just puns. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are 力's edits enough?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Zagalejo's demonstration that the subject has a solid literature, and Qwaiiplayer's observation that Macaronic language covers a much wider field. Puns are so important in literature, culture, advertising, etc., that they deserve their own article. Thanks to those who've cleaned up, the current article is a good foundation for development (incl. addition of refs like Zagalejo's), and is no longer an embarrassment. Elemimele (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a bit of an issue with the stripping out of huge swaths of the article. And every single reference. Maybe it was rubbish, but it is hard to evaluate now and we have to start over. Lightburst (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst:, the problem is one of balance. The original article had a tiny lead, then a contents-box which showed only examples because the entire non-lead content of the article was a list of (referenced) examples. If there had been some text about the cultural importance of bilingual puns, their importance in advertising, in public perception, and about the conditions needed for them to arise, followed by examples, it would have been a much better article. I would support putting most of the examples back in, provided the article is more than just a list of puns. Elemimele (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [20] The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) 05 Jul 1985, Fri Page 2 Thank heavens Verdun: It's time to Berri these bilingual Metro puns. That's all I could find. Plenty of brief mentions of it, so its a real thing, but not really much to write about that I can see thus far. Dream Focus 15:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my first thought was this could be merged to Pun, however I am finding significant historical use, and academic interest in the terminology. I have begun rewriting the article and added two book references and two other books to a bibliography. If this is not kept, I believe it is significant and should be merged. Lightburst (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up and referenced it. Before I go further I will wait to see what other editors think. I think the next section to add may be poetry... certainly there is more to add to history and literature. Lightburst (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per evidence presented above. Dronebogus (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been rewritten, and seems quite encyclopedic. Evidence found this is mentioned in various places. Dream Focus 17:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concerns of the nomination don't apply anymore since the article has been overhauled. The article is good enough as it is now, even if it's short, and the prose sources are adequate both in content and in number. Avilich (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A topic of scholarly discussion as an element of literature and linguistics. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:37, 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 delete. Schools are not de facto notable if they can be proved to exist, per the explanation at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It's likely that the essay WP:UNIN is outdated. (Incidentally, I went ahead and removed the word "guideline" from the title of that essay to avoid confusion.) In the absence of sources to establish the notability of the school, the article must be deleted. I'm happy to restore the article to draft space if someone wants to work on it. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apeejay Stya University[edit]

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

A non-notable university in India with no sources establishing the school's existence outside of few links that mention the school in passing. From my own research, I was not able to find anything mentioning the school that as having passed basic general notability guidelines for it to have its own article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This university is affiliated to University Grants Commission (India) as per this here and here and is a independently accredited degree-awarding institution ,a recognized university have added references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been a bit confused about this. This might be a good avenue to clarify this. WP:UNIN says that In general, all colleges and universities are de facto notable and should be included on Wikipedia. (That this view has generally prevailed is expressed at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.. But WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES doesn't say this. It says Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online. which is different to de facto notability. I know that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES was updated in between. Possible that WP:UNIN is outdated? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But UNIN is not a guideline or policy as stated. But we have an issue with this article as no sources are used to lay out the school's history, what it teaches, and all "news" sources mention it in passing. Notability is still a requirement. This doesn't meet it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word "guideline" should really be removed from the title of that essay. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't really feel like going into the nuances of why I think this has to pass WP:NORG, but IMO it does. In the meantime, looking over the references there are 8 that say it is recognized by the University Grants Commission, which is clearly ref bombing, but not much else. So in no way does it pass the standards of notable for organizations. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always held officially accredited universities to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This place may be accredited but sources have to establish not just the accreditation but for the school itself. GNG still matters which this doesn't meet. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete: I also feel it fails to meet WP:NORG. Just accreditation doesn't mean notability. Advait (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete Yes, it exists. But do the sources prove the notability: ehm, no.. The Banner talk 19:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify let others' work on it and let it come to main article namespace via AfC route. -Hatchens (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep officially accredited universities are notable.27.5.75.113 (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now it fails WP:NORG. Does not satisfy GNG too. DMySon (talk) 16:10, 5 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compass Games[edit]

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

This article concerns a board game manufacturer that does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. The references currently cited in the article are either (1) user-generated content, (2) generic storefronts for the company's products, or (3) a short review of one of their games. Even if these references were reliable sources (which they generally are not), none discuss the company in any meaningful detail, and certainly do not constitute significant coverage. BEFORE searches likewise do not return results that could be used to support the page.

I initially PROD'd the article as part of NPP but the creator contested on the grounds that "this company has published over a dozen notable games." However notability is not inherited and we need coverage about the company itself to demonstrate sufficient notability for this page. DocFreeman24 (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources in the article don't come close to meeting WP:N. Searching, only thing close is [21] which is little more than a passing mention. I'd love to see this kept, but I don't think the sources exist. delete but ping me if you find more sources that seem like they might get us to meeting WP:N. Hobit (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are a number of their games with articles here, I'd be fine with a "list of games by Compass Games" or some such. But I don't think their games do have pages here? Hobit (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since notability clearly isn't met for now. Retswerb (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Ping me if article is improved with something that shows their significance (media coverage, awards, scholarly studies of their importance to the board game industry, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Clearly indicates it won't meet notability guidelines and I was unable to find any reliable source through google search. Mommmyy (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:56, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Warner (dancer)[edit]

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

The article seems to be existing due to this person becoming a ~~centurion~~ centenarian, rather than having a notable life or career. I cannot find anything to support notability and reaching 100 is not in itself notable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do, of course, mean centenarian, as duly noted by Ipigott. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article subject received a three-paragraph obituary at the time of her death, and searching by name in the Times index fails to turn up anything further. In those days a NY Times obituary was given to many people we would not consider notable. Notability of subject therefore is not established. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe she qualifies as a centenarian.--Ipigott (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: Respectfully, I don't think what you or any editor "believes" is a suitable rationale in an afd when it isn't supported by policy. Which WP notability policy, particularly in relation to dancers, suggests that reaching 100 automatically qualifies the person as being notable for an article? Maybe more basically, why does this person pass WP:GNG? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bungle: Hi Bungle and thanks for noticing my comment. It's just that I have followed many previous discussions here in connection with centenarians (both lists and individuals), e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of centenarians (3rd nomination), where the consensus has weighed in favour of keep. Given obits in the NYT, etc., this factor deserves to be taken into consideration in this case too. We could discuss the semantics of "believe" but I don't think this is the right place although I should perhaps point out that a "centurion" was a Roman soldier.--Ipigott (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, regarding centurion (to which you are very correct, it's just a way in which I am used to pronouncing it), but I am glad you otherwise understood my rationale. For what it's worth, the comparison afd you offered relates to multiple lists comprising multiple individuals. That is very much an entirely different consideration in an afd. I will point out however, that on List of centenarians (sportspeople) (which was part of the aforementioned afd you quote), the entry line reads, "The following is a list of centenarians – specifically, people who became famous as sportspeople — known for reasons other than their longevity". This does inevitably take me back to my direct question, "why does this person pass WP:GNG"? Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that she appeared on stage with Anna Held seems to me to be evidence of notability. You cannot expect the same kind of internet coverage of people who died 1n 1940 as those who died in the 21st century.--Ipigott (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: Very well. I respect your right to a view, I just happen to disagree, based on the information offered. For what it's worth, many of my recent article builds and contribs relate to sourcing historic coverage (in fact, I wrote Tommy Burns (diver) from scratch recently, and he died in the 19th century), so I am not unfamiliar with finding historic and archive referencing. If someone is notable enough, there is usually *something*; maybe someone else could find something, or maybe not. Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In the light of the above and the absence of further identified coverage.--Ipigott (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a deep dive source search in all the relevant places with the TWL and I couldn't find anything at all in any sort of name variations or combinations other than these obituary notices. I just have to assume that either these sorts of performances in the late 1800's were not covered in newspaper sources or, possibly more likely, they're just not digitized yet. Either way, without any indication of further sources existing, I see no reason to keep the article. Silver seren^C 07:19, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Torres Ortiz[edit]

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

BLP of a town mayor who received 9,316 votes. Does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very small-time, failing WP:NPOL. Geschichte (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep otherwise, we'd have to delete most articles on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayors_in_Puerto_Rico#Mayors_2021%E2%80%932025. Perhaps the nominator doesn't know this but Puerto Rican mayors are usually considered to be notable, no matter the size of the city. Furthermore, he is the mayor of a city of 34,000 residents in an island of 4 million. If my calculator is right, this is akin to putting the mayor of a city of 26,000,000 in the US for deletion, percentage-wise. He is , therefore, clearly notable, at least in Puerto Rico.Antonio El Alcalde Martin (si?) 01:15, 29 October, 2021 (UTC)

Norway has 5 million and I personally reckon the bar here to be over 100,000. There is just an absolute standard somewhere, under which it just gets too small. Let's nominate the others for deletion if you say so, per your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Geschichte (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Puerto Rico is the same size as Wales, but we don’t have bio articles in the mayors of Wrexham, Bangor, Aberystwyth or Bridgend. Mccapra (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dont know what the criteria is for Welsh mayors but again I refer you to the list above because then, we'd have to put about 37 other articles for deletion and those are only current mayors, let alone former ones, articles of Puerto Rican mayors exist by the hundreds. Antonio Macabre Martin (ya?) 07:05, 29 October, 2021 (UTC)

Antonio, all you are doing by making that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is inviting people to nominate a lot more articles for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Puerto Rico doesn't get a special dispensation to have its mayors treated differently than mayors in other political jurisdictions, when it comes to inclusion in Wikipedia — in every place in the world that has mayors, the notability or non-notability of a mayor under WP:NPOL #2 always comes down to the quality and depth of the sourcing that you can or can't show to support a substantive article about the person's political significance. It's never enough to just minimally verify that the person exists, and then write background trivia about his family and education and pre-mayoral career — notability comes down to how much you can or can't write about his work as mayor: specific things he did in the mayor's chair, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the town or city, and on and so forth. There are no freebies based on the population size of the city for any country on earth: it's always, always a question of how much substance you can or can't write and source about the significance of his work as mayor, and this is neither written nor sourced in the ways that a mayor's article actually needs to be. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The denizens of Puerto Rico are subject to the same notability guidelines as others: nothing higher and nothing lower. Being a mayor is not a claim of notability under WP:NPOL, and there's no substantial GNG-qualifying sourcing. (He's mentioned occasionally, but there's no in-depth coverage of the man himself.) As such, Torres Ortiz is not notable; I would reach the same conclusion for a mayor anywhere else in the world if the sourcing was similarly limited. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:40, 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Houseman[edit]

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

There appear to be no independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this subject. The article has two sources, one is the publisher of a book by the subject, the other a link to an announcement of a talk by the subject in The Ethical Record. Vexations (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources for biographical informational (birth, death, education), and no information on exhibitions. Fails notability as an artist and/or author. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CREATIVE. Gnews comes up with namesakes. LibStar (talk) 05:41, 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 03:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Parve[edit]

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

fails WP:SIGCOV. I am unable to find biography of this person. Even no birth of date is stated. Related organization (Estonian Defense Industry Association) is probable also not notable Estopedist1 (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete There's no significant coverage. There's no assertion of notability here.Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 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. ✗plicit 03:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Element Anti-Virus[edit]

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

no evidence of notability -- mostly trivial or promotional reviews. The material on Softpedia is an advertisement. Software informer is a brief review only. DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable article, little third-party coverage, questionable references. Top search results just link back to this page. DecorumForum125 (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No coverage other than promotions and the download websites. – SD0001 (talk) 13:46, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Bouck[edit]

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

He and his platoon did something remarkable, not him by himself. One CNN article isn't going to satisfy WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while its arguable that he is only known for the WP:1E of the Battle of Lanzerath Ridge, he is featured in so many books about that battle that I think notability is satisfied. Mztourist (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:19, 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 speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ebstar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and/or WP:NMUSICIAN. Edwardx (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G5 and G11), see previous AfD with delete result, and blocked sock. MarioGom (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MarioGom. What was I thinking? Should have been a speedy! Edwardx (talk) 00:13, 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. ✗plicit 11:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Star Magic artists[edit]

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

Poorly sourced and unreliable. An article for Star Magic also already exists, so if "artists" should be mentioned, it should be in the article of Star Magic instead of a separate article. TheHotwiki (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because: a. Former artists of Star Magic is poorly sourced; b. article for Star Magic batches is trivial. Artists and "batches" could be covered in the article of Star Magic, which isn't a long article - if deemed necessary.TheHotwiki (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Star Magic. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also an article List of former Star Magic artists that is also the same reason as the subject being nominated. If you guys want to nominate it for deletion, then go. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SeanJ 2007: It is now included in this petition, along with List of Star Magic Batches.TheHotwiki (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hotwiki, poorly sourced. Ctrlwiki (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY.--ERAMnc 16:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Star Magic. Drags4U (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is this different from List of Creative Artists Agency clients? An article being poorly sourced is not a reason to delete it. See WP:IMPERFECT. Koikefan (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well like I said, Star Magic isn't a long article to begin with. Artists could easily be mentioned in that article without a separate Wikipedia article.TheHotwiki (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Star Magic: still another Philippine showbiz article violating WP:NOTDIRECTORY. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It's not necessary to create a list of talents for every talent agency or network. Viva Artists Agency doesn't have one. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources per name saying that it signed a contract with Star Magic so there is a reason it was deleted.--7starunited (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we did this type of article for Endeavor or CAA for American performers, this would be laughed out of the room. Wikipedia is not a talent agency database. Nate • (chatter) 01:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I look forward to you nominating List of Creative Artists Agency clients for deletion. Koikefan (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:V. Almost completely unsourced, and many entries don't even have a Wikipedia page. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTADVERT. Lists of "current things" are inherently unstable and generally non-encyclopedic. Anyone needing this info can get it from the company's website, which we're currently mirroring. pburka (talk) 01:40, 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 11:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elian Nalerio[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL, his claim to fame being 59 minutes of play in the USL Championship. He is now on the fifth or sixth tier in Portugal, so basically has given up his soccer career. Any coverage he might have is not WP:SIGCOV. Geschichte (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The trivial coverage I could find was restricted to his youth teams. Nothing to suggest he has received SIGCOV anywhere. JoelleJay (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, therefore WP:NFOOTBALL is irrelevant. Also to note, it appears the subject may also go by the name "Elian Gamboa", which similarly didn't produce any significant coverage. GauchoDude (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:40, 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cuming Street[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Then, as now, the article fails to meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 07:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 07:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 07:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Utterly unremarkable street. Sounder Bruce 10:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Just another street. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:16, 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jagnyeswar Ratha[edit]

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

I'm not seeing how Ratha could pass WP:NPROF: an associate professorship doesn't qualify under crit. 5, and a fairly low h-index of 10 (based almost entirely on grad-school collaborations with more notable academics) doesn't convince me that crit. 1 is met. Since there's no indication that the GNG or any other NPROF criterion is satisfied, he seems to be non-notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it's a bit WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this 2007 PhD who moved on from the postdoc track in 2015. Middle author (in a field where order matters) on a handful of moderately cited papers does not convince me of WP:NPROF C1, and no other notability is apparent. (In particular, secondary implication in a mild scandal about data falsification looks unlikely to grant notability.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a full Professor. Low H-index. Way TOOSOON. Article reads like promotion. The closest thing to independent comment is one of his papers being listed for having a problematic image. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baynote[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~doesn't meet WP:NCORP Advait (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: no evidence of meeting NCORP. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to suggest a redirect to Vista Equity Partners as having acquired the topic company but I have nominated that company to AfD also as it has 81 references, 99% of which are based on announcements and PR. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no prejudice against a redirect. Baynote appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH, based off of my reading of the sources here and what I could find online. Any discussion on whether or not Vista Equity Partners is notable should take place at the appropriate AfD; that isn't a conversation for here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:40, 5 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. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet, with no other delete proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Forest (2016 Thai film)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet with WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. || Orbit Wharf 04:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. || Orbit Wharf 04:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. || Orbit Wharf 04:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An indie film that appears to have gone mostly under the radar, though it does have coverage in Thairath[22] and Praew[23], in addition to the Coconuts piece already cited in the article. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close The nominator has been blocked a sock and was evading a block at the time of this nomination. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:12, 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. ✗plicit 11:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been redirected to American Idol (season 6) instead of deleted. Can this article be restored as a redirect? Jpcase (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Rogers (singer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article has been nominated for deletion a couple of times, but I still don’t think that this person meets the notability guidelines. Most of the article is unsourced, searching him up is hard because there is another singer called Brandon Rogers who appeared on America's Got Talent and then sadly died. Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claims that this BLP is notable are not supported by independent references. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a case of TOOSOON. I was unable to find reliable sources covering the subject for it to pass GNG. --WomenProj (talk) 20:03, 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 redirect to Adelaide Plains Football League. I'm in agreement with PMC, I don't see any problem with running several AfDs concurrently. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balaklava Football Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per the recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamley Bridge Football Club, this club represents a local village with populations of around 2,000 that play against each other nearby villages. Given that around 12% of Australians are males between 15-35 years old, that means that these villages have around 200 prime-aged males to select for their teams, and these clubs are nowhere near notable in terms of sporting merit. The only refs are village newspapers or the books by Peter Lines on rural local football teams, which are self-published books Bumbubookworm (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Bumbubookworm:, the consensus was to deal with these one at a time, not give you license to just run the lot of them again together. Can you please withdraw the nomination for all of these except one so proper consideration can be given to each AfD debate, and run them ONE at a time? Deus et lex (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for failure to properly run this AfD. Deus et lex (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: IMO, listing three similar articles in separate AfDs on one day is not so taxing to editors in the topic area (nor so overbearing on the AfD process in general) that it justifies a procedural close. More than five, maybe, but not three.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Premeditated Chaos:, at least 4 have been nominated at the same time, and on the same day that the previous AfD was closed, in direct contradiction to the consensus reached earlier. It's disruptive. Deus et lex (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Wells Football Club. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, notability not demonstrated. Alternative would be a merge to Adelaide Plains Football League. No need for a speedy close, correct AfD process has been followed as discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Wells Football Club. Nelertasta (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adelaide Plains Football League: The available sourcing fails to meet the bar of notability. Redirecting to the overarching league as an alternative to deletion seems appropriate. I have considered and discount the concerns regarding procedural irregularities as unfounded. Jack Frost (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adelaide Plains Football League per above as WP:ATD-R. Whether that league is notable might be a discussion for another day. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:53, 5 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 Adelaide Plains Football League. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two Wells Football Club[edit]

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

Per the recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamley Bridge Football Club, this club represents a local village with populations of around 2,000 that play against each other nearby villages. Given that around 12% of Australians are males between 15-35 years old, that means that these villages have around 200 prime-aged males to select for their teams, and these clubs are nowhere near notable in terms of sporting merit. The only refs are village newspapers or the books by Peter Lines on rural local football teams, which are self-published books Bumbubookworm (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Bumbubookworm:, the consensus was to deal with these one at a time, not give you license to just run the lot of them again together. Can you please withdraw the nomination for all of these except one so proper consideration can be given to each AfD debate, and run them ONE at a time? Deus et lex (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for failure to properly run this AfD. Deus et lex (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: IMO, listing three similar articles in separate AfDs on one day is not so taxing to editors in the topic area (nor so overbearing on the AfD process in general) that it justifies a procedural close. More than five, maybe, but not three.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Premeditated Chaos:, at least 4 have been nominated at the same time, and on the same day that the previous AfD was closed, in direct contradiction to the consensus reached earlier. It's disruptive. Deus et lex (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't, and clearly I'm not the only admin who thinks so, or these nominations would have been speedy closed by someone before the initial week-long nomination period ran out. Four AfD nominations on similar topics in one day is not disruptive to the AfD process in general or so burdensome to editors in the topic area that it would be impossible for them to keep up, especially given that AfD discussions run for at least a week. Further, there is nothing in the result of the previous AfD that precludes or contradicts nominating similar articles for deletion (just because one closed as redirect does not meet that another would be suitable for the same).
In the time it took you write this and copy-paste it to four different AfDs, you could have been checking for sources and making an actual policy-based argument for keeping the article. I suggest you turn your attention to that if you wish to see the articles retained. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the articles - I just think it's an abuse of the AfD process for an editor to immediately renominate half the articles they previously did when they were told that a mass nomination was inappropriate. And I think you should care about that too. Deus et lex (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The close statement of the previous AfD was, in full, The result was keep. Participants believe these should be nominated separately if needed, signifying no prejudice against speedy renomination of individual articles. In other words, the admin closing the mass nomination specifically gave individual renominations the go-ahead, per the consensus of the discussion (and per common practice after a large failed group AfD). There is no abuse of process going on with these AfDs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The admin gave the go-ahead to run them separately - that means one at a time. It did not give the go-ahead to run a mass nomination again (which was the problem with the first AfD). This is an abuse of the AfD system, and you should not be supporting it. Deus et lex (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that means one at a time - no, it does not. It means individually as in "not bundled together". Four separate AfDs whose subjects are within the same topic area is not a mass nomination, and I'm not going to go around in circles trying to explain it to you further. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk of the nomination being disruptive appears to be a stalling tactic. The nomination complies with both AfD rules and the closing statement made in the previous AfD. Instead of arguing over points of order, a more productive thing for anybody wanting the article retained would be to make an effort to improve the article. Nelertasta (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not raising this as a stalling tactic, I'm raising legitimate issues about the process by which this and the other AfDs have been put forward. I think you are wrong, Premeditated Chaos and Nelertasta. I'm concerned that editors mass nominate articles, then when told not to do so just go and do the same thing again. It's not right, and there should be no arbitrary distinction between 4 or 5 articles about what is or isn't a mass nomination. The complaint in the first AfD was that a one at a time nomination would be better, and that is the only way to do this properly. Deus et lex (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Explicit, since you were the closer at the last AfD, can you confirm that I am not misinterpreting your closing statement? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos and Deus et lex: PMC's reading of my closure is correct. The consensus was to list the articles for deletion in separate nominations instead of a bundle, not one at a time. ✗plicit 08:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deus et lex, you appear to be suggesting that there should only be one active nomination at a time, i.e. one gets nominated, the process then runs over a couple of weeks, then is closed and the next is nominated? So the process is spun out over a couple of months, talk about death by a thousand cuts. Nelertasta (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, notability not demonstrated. Alternative would be a merge to Adelaide Plains Football League. Nelertasta (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adelaide Plains Football League: Available sourcing fails to meet the threshold of the General Notability Guideline. Redirect to the overarching league as an alternative to deletion. I have considered and discount the concerns regarding procedural irregularities as unfounded. Jack Frost (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adelaide Plains Football League per above as WP:ATD-R. As Explicit has clarified what they meant by "speedy renomination of individual articles," the discussion of procedure is needlessly WP:BUREAU at this point. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:00, 5 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 Adelaide Plains Football League. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hummocks Watchman Eagles Football Club[edit]

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

Per the recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamley Bridge Football Club, this club represents a local village with population of 500 that plays against each other villages. Given that around 12% of Australians are males between 15-35 years old, that means that these villages have around 50 prime-aged males to select for their teams, and these clubs are nowhere near notable in terms of sporting merit. The only refs are village newspapers or the books by Peter Lines on rural local football teams, which are self-published books Bumbubookworm (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Bumbubookworm:, the consensus was to deal with these one at a time, not give you license to just run the lot of them again together. Can you please withdraw the nomination for all of these except one so proper consideration can be given to each AfD debate, and run them ONE at a time? Deus et lex (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for failure to properly run this AfD. Deus et lex (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: IMO, listing three similar articles in separate AfDs on one day is not so taxing to editors in the topic area (nor so overbearing on the AfD process in general) that it justifies a procedural close. More than five, maybe, but not three.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Premeditated Chaos:, at least 4 have been nominated at the same time, and on the same day that the previous AfD was closed, in direct contradiction to the consensus reached earlier. It's disruptive. Deus et lex (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Wells Football Club. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, notability not demonstrated. Alternative would be a merge to Adelaide Plains Football League. No need for a speedy close, correct AfD process has been followed as discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Wells Football Club. Nelertasta (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adelaide Plains Football League: Available sourcing fails to meet the GNG. Redirect to the overarching league as an alternative to deletion. The concerns regarding procedural irregularities are baseless and I disregard them entirely. Jack Frost (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adelaide Plains Football League per above as WP:ATD-R. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adelaide Plains Football League per Jack Frost's rationale. Pilaz (talk) 14:52, 5 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 11:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angola–Azerbaijan relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The relations are very little: no embassies, state visits, agreements, migration and the level of trade is as low as USD330. The fact that a bunch of students visited Angola in 2013 as part of a multicountry visit hardly adds to bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References provide coverage of individual events, but there is a lack of independent sources establishing that the topic is notable. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable, independent sources establishing that the topic of these countries' relationship is notable. Yilloslime (talk) 03:29, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Bailin[edit]

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

Highly promotional despite hardly claiming any accomplishment worthy of note. Fails WP:GNG, as there are no sources that meet the requirements at WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NAUTHOR as an author of one non-notable book.(NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed, the book seems to be run-of-the-mill self-published management-literature, not an influential best-seller, and he's only produced the one; his business doesn't stand out as particularly notable, and the references are very thin, one-liners saying he talked somewhere. Nothing against the chap, but doesn't need an encyclopaedia article. Elemimele (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article, does not meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam, for which the author is now blocked. MER-C 14:56, 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 redirect 1, keep 1.

Redirect List of Australian prime ministers by political affiliation to List of prime ministers of Australia
Keep List of prime ministers of Australia by time in office

The consensus is that the main Aussie PM list already displays party affiliation, while it does not effectively display cumulative time in office, hence the different result. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian prime ministers by political affiliation[edit]

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

Both of these list articles are redundant WP:CONTENTFORKs of List of prime ministers of Australia presenting the same information in an extremely similar format. There is no need for WP to have multiple pages presenting the same information especially as List of prime ministers of Australia has sortable columns. Any useful information should be merged with List of prime ministers of Australia. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 05:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC) --Canley (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this list is valuable as it very quickly allows the reader to see how many Prime Ministers have come from each political party.--Bduke (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So does the List of prime ministers of Australia, as others have pointed out. With that article it took me all of five seconds to get a list of all the prime ministers from the Country Party. Delete. Athel cb (talk) 07:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:FORK of List of prime ministers of Australia. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both or redirect both to List of prime ministers of Australia, entirely unnecessary CFORK of the latter which has a searchable columns allowing readers to search by political party or time in office. Cavalryman (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
- But it cant display the combined time in office of PM's who had miltiple terms. Superegz (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure it can. In fact, I just added it. TompaDompa (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant, not likely search topics as the search will yield List of prime ministers of Australia. Geschichte (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:DELREASON#5: Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate). These are both very obvious forks of List of prime ministers of Australia. I don't see any content worth merging there and I don't think these titles would make for useful redirects. I suppose whether Template:Timeline Australian PM should be transcluded could be discussed separately, but List of prime ministers of Australia#Timeline does the same thing so it would seem rather redundant to me. TompaDompa (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- But the List of prime ministers of Australia by time in office article contains the combined term in ofice for PM's with split terms like Menzies and Rudd. This information and how this combined term in office impacts the rankings is nowhere else. Superegz (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cumulative time in office is now also at List of prime ministers of Australia. TompaDompa (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I can see how this list IS serving a useful function. However, the list does need to be improved, for example, by adding some source citations. YTKJ (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noting that I added references to each PM on List of prime ministers of Australia by time in office a couple of days ago.Superegz (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's useful to be able to easily see how long a leader held power in comparison to others in their office. When this is just one of many aspects of the office listed on a page it's likely to get lost amid other information. Axedel (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The lists on these two (1 2) articles are almost indistinguishable so I am not sure how that argument stands. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are not actually as 2 has no way of seeing the combined term in office for a PM with a split term in office. It lists each ministry separetly, which as a result shows split-term PM's as though they are multiple people. Superegz (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have now added cumulative time in office to List of prime ministers of Australia where applicable. TompaDompa (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - An example of why your implementation is not good enough is Billy Hughes. When I sort by time in Office, his later Ministries are still displayed below Stanley Bruce and Joseph Lyons, while his 1st Ministry as a Labor PM is way below. I would have to do some manual thinking to realise where he actually belongs in the list. Also there is no number displayed so I can easily determine his ranking. The List of prime ministers of Australia by time in office article as it currently exists does not have these problems and also avoids the issues of each ministry being displayed separately which is not very clean. That alone, in my opinion, is reason enough for the separate table to be kept. Superegz (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        That sounds more like a reason to keep tinkering with the implementation (if anything) than to keep a content fork to me. TompaDompa (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        If a satisfactory table that can present all the information in a clean way can be created, perhaps. I doubt that such a table that can present both the cronological order of PM's terms as well as a ranking of time in office, taking into account PM's who had split terms can be easily created. Until such a table is in place, I think the best thing to do is keep the current List of prime ministers of Australia by time in office article. Its not like its an unusual solution. Most, if not all, parliamentary countries and subnational parliamentary system's have such a separate table for time in office for this very reason. Superegz (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least the political party article, as it's already listed on the article for the prime ministers as a whole.2601:241:300:B610:3CB7:E279:67AC:8D10 (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)— 2601:241:300:B610:3CB7:E279:67AC:8D10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep at least the List of prime ministers of Australia by time in office article. The sortable table on the List of prime ministers of Australia does not produce a proper version of this list. For example, it shows each ministry separately when you select time in office and there is no way to see the combined time on office for PM's who served multiple terms, like Rudd or Menzies. If you deleted the article, this information would be lost. That means that there would be no way to see, among other things, that Rudd over took Edmund Barton or that Alfred Deakin served longer than John Curtain, Paul Keeting, Ben Chiefley and Andrew Fisher. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by length of tenure, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of Canada by time in office and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of presidents of the United States by time in office (2nd nomination) were recently kept for similar reasons. Superegz (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I added cumulative time in office to List of prime ministers of Australia where applicable. TompaDompa (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still think the implementation looks really dodgy and you still cant easily see a proper order of pm's by time in office. The article as it exists now is way better and more consistant with the articles of other countries. Superegz (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I might see if I can merge the election fields or something later. Superegz (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I had a little bit of a play around and I just dont think this is something that it is possible to really implement in a satisfactory way in a single table without breaking other parts of the table. I believe that its best for there to remain a separate table for the list by times in office. Its clearly not a coincidence that people have come to the same conclusion with other countries equivalent pages. Superegz (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Prime Ministers by time in office article for the legitimate reasons raised by Superegz and the similar AfDs for other countries being kept as an outcome. Deus et lex (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to the work of TompaDompa cumulative time in office is now reflected in List of prime ministers of Australia. While some may have issue with the exact presentation (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT), this is WP:FIXABLE and I don't think justifies keeping List of prime ministers of Australia by time in office for the 7 examples that have multiple non-consecutive terms in office now this information is retained. We can easily add a column for 'Total time in office (all periods)' that would give exactly the same information. Other arguments seem to boil down to WP:WHATABOUT. Seems like most editors are on the same page about the political parties page though. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- My argument for keeping the List of prime ministers of Australia by time in office isn't so much WP:WHATABOUT, it's that the same arguments that were used to keep those other articles from the UK, Canada and the USA also apply here. The List of prime ministers of Australia is not fit for the display of such information and I don't think it has been sufficiently demonstrated that it is possible to create a single table for both purposes, which is the conclusion other editors came to when discusding those other articles. The main problem is that the List of prime ministers of Australia is primarily a list of prime ministerial terms, which are naturally separate not only with individuals in the case of those who had split terms but also split at each election, ministry and in the case of Billy Hughes, change of party affiliation. This is because the table was designed to show the chronology of prime ministerial terms, a job it does well. The problem is that this really makes it a mess when you sort by time in office and any changes to fix this would result in less information for other parts of the table.

The List of prime ministers of Australia by time in office by contrast is primarily a list of the actual people with the information of individual terms, change of party, elections won etc consolidated into single fields. This works well for the purpose it was designed for too because it provides an easy way to see how long each PM served, how many they have served longer than, how many have served longer than them etc.

The problem is that you are trying to merge 2 fundamentally different tables, designed for different purposes, that do not go well with each other, especially under the Parliamentary system of undefined terms of office and no term limits. Superegz (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per Superegz's rationale. Whilst I respect efforts to merge List of prime ministers of Australia by time in office into the main table of List of prime ministers of Australia, it doesn't perform two of the functions of the former list: Firstly, sorting PMs seems to duplicate their entry (eg. Robert Menzies is listed seven times, Howard, Hawke, Fraser, and Lyons are listed four times each). Secondly, PMs can no longer be ranked by time in office. The latter point is notable considering news outlets routinely discuss a current PMs length of tenure against a former one they have just surpassed:
- Excerpt from The Australian: "Morrison is on track to eclipse Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Malcolm Turnbull by the end of this year. Indeed, if Morrison is in office by Christmas he will also surpass Edmund Barton, Gough Whitlam and John Gorton to become the 13th longest serving out of 30 prime ministers."
- Excerpt from The Canberra Times: "Mr Morrison will surpass Julia Gillard this week and become Australia's 14th longest-serving leader."

Those are just two recent examples regarding the current PM, but I can also find examples for PMs Gillard, Rudd, Abbott, Turnbull, and potentially older PMs in the literature. It is also worth considering that List of prime ministers of Australia by time in office has been viewed by more than 18,000 people in the last 3 months. I have no opinion for List of Australian prime ministers by political affiliation. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nom and @TompaDompa. Both of these articles are just redundant WP:CONTENTFORK's of List of prime ministers of Australia. Wikipedia doesn't need essentially the same exact information spread out over three articles. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel like you are straight out ignoring the points raised by MelbourneStar and myself. The information on the List of prime ministers of Australia by time in office can't be adequately reproduced on the List of prime ministers of Australia page. That List also is clearly meeting a need of the community as demonstrated by MelbourneStar.Superegz (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as they are useful lists.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:57, 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 keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy (Trey Songz song)[edit]

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

This song fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Although the article says it charted on two different Billboard lists, I followed the links and I don't see it on either one. If someone can find evidence that it did appear on Billboard, that could indicate notability per NSONG. I vote it be deleted or maybe merged to Tremaine the Album. Citrivescence (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Billboard chart positions are false and could not be verified. I have removed the chart. However, as the song has enough significant coverage in reliable sources, I vote to keep it. Boredathome101 (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you provide links to the reliable coverage you're referring to? I don't see any in the article itself and I don't see any in a Google search. The RS in the article are about the album, not the song. Citrivescence (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct – WP:NSONG states: "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." And it appears that this is the case... the only reliable sources mention the song within the context of the complete album review. Richard3120 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HotNewHipHop is a well known HipHop publications, nominated for BET awards [24]. Rap-up is in-depth about the track. VIBE is a well known publication, but just a mention of the track. USA Today mentions the track. And AXS It is in-depth about the track. If you don't know that site, you should not be doing music AFD voting. Webmaster862 (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The HotNewHipHop and Rap-Up articles really aren't in-depth at all, they are the standard promotional "watch the artist's latest video below" and say barely anything about the track. AXS is a concert ticket website – not only are they not considered a journalistic source, they aren't independent either, because quote obviously it is in their interests to say good things about the artist and their music in order to sell tickets for their shows. Richard3120 (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources mentioned by Boredathome. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel this passes WP:GNG. For an uncontroversial topic like a song, I think the supplied references are sufficient. NemesisAT (talk) 17:04, 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhminderpal Grewal[edit]

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

This article was previously deleted by PROD and, after I redirected the creator here from the IRC help channel, was restored at WP:REFUND by the author. The person, however, is not notable: he is a non-elected political worker (failing WP:BIO) and my Google search for coverage in English, Hindi and Punjabi found only mentions scattered in sources marginal or questionable reliability. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources on him, and thus Grewal fails WP:BIO. The article also probably can be speedied as advertising (G11), but given the high possibility of politically motivated SPAs coming back to write on him – he is, after all, a BJP politician in Punjab, which has elections next year – I'd like to have this deleted for notability and the higher restrictions of G4 in place against tendentious recreations. Java Hurricane 03:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 03:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 03:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 03:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don’t host election brochures and this individual is clearly not notable. Mccapra (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per this bio, it seems he's just an unelected party bureaucrat, failing WP:NPOL, with no little RS to support WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, Curbon7, this looks like copyright infringement given that the copy on the page of the link you shared seems similar to the article and it's from 2010 so it's not a Wikipedia copy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment subject is in a leadership position within the BJP front organisation representing farmers (Kisan Morcha), this is more than simply being a party bureaucrat (Farm laws: Punjab BJP sets up 8-member panel to talk to farmers). Despite claims in the nomination, from what I can see there's passing mentions in mainstream English language press coverage [25] [26] [27] [28], however, whether this satisfies WP:BASIC, I hesitate to conclude at this point, having not searched in local languages; but not quite an overwhelming argument for delete given the nomination missed these. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had not missed these references. I had considered these (and other, local language sources) before nominating. And as for the position in the party: as a resident of India myself, I can assure you that each region is chock full with such minor members who describe themselves as "leaders". Many of these people like to piggyback on major incidents and make all sorts of allegations simply to get their names in newspapers and on TV news channels. These mentions do not contribute to notability. Java Hurricane 02:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination states "found only mentions scattered in sources marginal or questionable reliability", but this does not describe, for example, The Hindu, The Wire. So the observation stands, the nomination is misleading in the nature of sources where passing mentions exist. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:32, 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 delete. ✗plicit 02:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rust, Illinois[edit]

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

The north end of a long passing siding, speckled around by farms then and now. Searching is heavily masked by surnames but the only reference I saw was about a road/driveway crossing the railroad. Mangoe (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect-Per above.Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 02:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect where? Please don't make such lazy comments, Lazy Maniik... Geschichte (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not a good target to do a WP:CHEAP. My newspaper search yields zero. Lightburst (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Eastern Township, Franklin County, Illinois. I'm finding no WP:SIGCOV on a Google search. This seems to be one of thousands of railroad stops and junctions that were on USGS maps pre-1940s then transferred to the USGS GNIS as populated places because no distinction between populated settlements and unpopulated locales was made on the old maps. See Wikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akin Junction, Illinois a little to the north. Rust has even less coverage than that.) --Closeapple (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a non-notable rail stop. –dlthewave ☎ 15:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MB 04:18, 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 02:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of current GMA Network contract artists[edit]

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

Why Wikipedia needs an article like this? An article similar to this (List of current ABS-CBN contract artists and List of current TV5 (Philippine TV network) contract artists) does not exist. It is okay if its a talent management article like List of current Star Magic artists and List of current GMA Artist Center artists. No reason for this to be created. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - On Wikipedia No Requirements of This Article.Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 02:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, honestly. The vast majority of this article is sourced to GMA press releases, which is far from acceptable. The Star Magic article has ZERO sources and Artist Center has the same internal sourcing, so both articles need to go with this one. Nate • (chatter) 05:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article with unreliable sources, as all citations come from GMA Network (non-independent = WP:NIS[!]). So the list article must be thrown into a wastebasket for good. So much problematic Philippine showbiz articles, this one just adds fuel to the already flaming problem. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. Pikavoom (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:LISTCRUFT. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no independent sources. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE. --ERAMnc 16:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a f'n directory. scope_creep^Talk 14:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and all of the above comments. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTADVERT. Lists of "current things" are inherently unstable and generally non-encyclopedic. Anyone needing this info can get it from the company's website, which we're currently mirroring. pburka (talk) 01:41, 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. Noting that the alleged abuse of process did not actually occur, as that comment misrepresented my closure of the AFD which was alluded to here. ✗plicit 02:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Adelaide Plains Football League per WP:ATD (as requested). ✗plicit 12:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United Football Club[edit]

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

Per the recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamley Bridge Football Club, this club represents two local villages, Dublin, South Australia and Long Plains, South Australia with populations of around 250 and 70 that play against each other local villages. Given that around 12% of Australians are males between 15-35 years old, that means that these villages have around 30 prime-aged males to select for their teams, so basically everyone would end up in this team, and these clubs are nowhere near notable in terms of sporting merit. The only refs are village newspapers or the books by Peter Lines on rural local football teams, which are self-published books Bumbubookworm (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Bumbubookworm:, the consensus was to deal with these one at a time, not give you license to just run the lot of them again together. Can you please withdraw the nomination for all of these except one so proper consideration can be given to each AfD debate, and run them ONE at a time? Deus et lex (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for failure to properly run this AfD. Deus et lex (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. as per above.Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 02:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin may wish to review User talk:Lazy Maniik/Archives/2021/October#Bad AFD comments before putting much weight on this comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a minor amateur sports club.--Grahame (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Premeditated Chaos:, at least 4 have been nominated at the same time, and on the same day that the previous AfD was closed, in direct contradiction to the consensus reached earlier. It's disruptive. Deus et lex (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PMC didn't even relist this discussion. Please do not copy paste messages across multiple deletion discussions; that can be considered disruptive. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Wells Football Club. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, notability not demonstrated. Alternative would be a merge to Adelaide Plains Football League. No need for a speedy close, correct AfD process has been followed as discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Wells Football Club. Nelertasta (talk) 03:31, 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.