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 Types of public housing estate blocks in Hong Kong. ✗plicit 23:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concord Block[edit]

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

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

The houses aren’t notable, I have tried speedily deleting this article but it was removed. The article is not sourced properly and there is lots of unsourced paragraphs. The only sources are primary sources (housing authority, floor plans, etc). Just because they have a Wikipedia article in Chinese it doesn’t automatically make it notable for the English Wikipedia. Sahaib3005 (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support deleting the article or merging it to Types of public housing estate blocks in Hong Kong. Sahaib3005 (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30-Story Cruciform Block. The article seems to be in the same style as that article, down to the references used - I wouldn't be surprised if they were created by the same person. BilledMammal (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selective) > Types of public housing estate blocks in Hong Kong Djflem (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Types of public housing estate blocks in Hong Kong.4meter4 (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Types of public housing estate blocks in Hong Kong.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Pooch and the Pauper[edit]

The Pooch and the Pauper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Pass WP:NFO. This is a Disney original made-for-TV film nationally televised on ABC and Disney Channel. This was also reviewed by, at least, one professional critic in a WP:RS. SirEd ^Dimmi!!! 02:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SirEdimon:Maybe. But one semi-reliable source doesn't make an article worth of inclusion. I was looking more for The Hollywood Reporter or Variety at least, but found none. Other articles have more sources than that.--Filmomusico (talk) 03:36, 20 August 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 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it is a notable film and I agree with the points above Sahaib (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I was able to find a review in The Washington Post in a ProQuest search (apologies for having no url to share as it's through my university library). See "Dog Days and Hot Cuban Music: Plus a Delayed Series Debut and a David Attenborough Quest" 16 July 2000, page MC3. With two reviews in respected national publications the subject marginally passes WP:NFO.4meter4 (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Date with the President's Daughter[edit]

My Date with the President's Daughter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- while reviews are hard to see, there are some very clear legacy pieces: [1], [2], [3]. Alex Zamm's website does also indicate that it was nominated for a WGA writing award for Children's Programming [4] - IMDB corroborates this [5] (fully aware that IMDB doesn't count as a reliable source, but in this case it's likely true and someone needs to just dig up a Variety archive to cite, and WP:NEXIST would apply. matt91486 (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Matt91486: The only thing I found in an archive is this.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I specifically meant the archive for Variety as a trade publication of the relevant WGA writing awards from 1999. matt91486 (talk) 03:34, 21 August 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 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Notable American major network television movie. If one has seen the opening scene of the movie where a teen girl complains about her morning and then walks to the window which pans out to show she lives in the White House, and it breaks into the title song by The Presidents of the United States of America, you know this is pure art.[6].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG with the sources presented by Matt91486. TipsyElephant (talk) 22:56, 4 September 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 Stephen Brooks (academic). ✗plicit 23:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Postclassical realism[edit]

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

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

While this concept exists, it doesn't have any traction and does not deserve its own article. A brief mention might be made on Neorealism (international relations) and Realism (international relations). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to one of the articles mentioned above, per nom. Neutrality^talk 17:33, 18 August 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 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Stephen Brooks (academic) as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Per points above. Stephen Brooks (academic) seems like the best target to me. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Stephen Brooks (academic).4meter4 (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scout Leaders Rescue Squad[edit]

Scout Leaders Rescue Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. There's barely any coverage of this; and what is there is really routine, trivial coverage from local sources (so not even enough to meet GNG), nothing to show that this is a truly notable emergency service which stands out from the rest... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have been putting off commenting on this one from the other side of the globe, but I think it is clear that it is not notable. --Bduke (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Coverage is trivial, which is isn't surprising given the minimal territory they cover. As such, fails GNG and the correct response is delete. Could be redirected to the Boy Scouts of America or the Red Cross, but which one isn't clear, and the organization has now cut ties with them, so I believe delete is the better option. BilledMammal (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Matheson[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NBIO as no sources were found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmomusico (talk • contribs) 21:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a biography of a living person with absolutely no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 24 August 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 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Greco[edit]

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

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

Non-notable artist. The whole of this is based on one single website; which seems of dubious reliability (it's WP:SPS by somebody who does not appear to be any form of authority in art history). I can't find anything else. Fails WP:GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of WP:RS. It is basically WP:OR at this point. Theredproject (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft There is a slight chance he may be notable, but for me search did not return anything and it's almost not possible to search something, taking into account his name consisted of two words that 100% return antique greco roman culture. Additional problem is that he died before WWW era and I assume if the notability can be proved, it has to be done with newspapers and magazines from archives, which would be predominantly in French. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can find no indication that this artist meets our criteria for notability GNG or NARTIST. The article is written in a strange tone, almost like it's a family memorial page with a lot of unsourced personal detail. I understand Arthistorian1977's point about pre-WWW references, and the possibility of draftifying which is a possibility. However given the state the article is in at this time, it makes more sense to delete it. If sourcing is found at sometime in the future via hard-copy books or digitization of newspapers, it can be recreated. Netherzone (talk) 17:28, 8 September 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 00:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ministry of Archers[edit]

The Ministry of Archers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM. Has two reviews from non-notable looking publications, but that's it, so I thought I'd bring it to AfD. Been in CAT:NN for almost 11 years. – DarkGlow • 23:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 23:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 23:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I found some reliable sources which talk about the album: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and [12]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Astig. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Astig.4meter4 (talk) 15:51, 8 September 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 00:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kempson[edit]

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

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

Non-notable artist who fails to meet WP:GNG. The whole of the sources in the article are either closely affiliated with him (own website; profiles from institutions where he has worked/is employed..., an interview) or are not acceptable as reliable sources (blogs) or are rather trivial coverage (gallery listings) or non-coverage (links to other artists' websites)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete unless claims can be verified. Overly detailed article about an artist with mostly regional solo exhibitions, none in institutional/museum spaces, and a lot of group exhibitions/fairs. Few secondary WP:RS with SIGCOV. His CV claims dozens of works are in collections, but most of these are non notable, and too small to verify. Of the most prominent, I could only verify one of four, and it is the least significant: Museum of Contemporary Art, Bangkok, Thailand doesn't have its collection online. National Gallery of Australia, Canberra has three works in the collection for which he was the printer, but not the artist. [13] He is in the artbank, though unclear if this meets the standards. [14]. Not in the National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts, Taipei [15] If it is to be kept, I think it needs a TNT. Theredproject (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This may be a difficult one to sort out, if the article and/or his CV lists works he printed (but did not create). Being a fabricator for other artists does not mean one inherits their notability. If the article kept, it will need a serious pruning of claims sourced to his website or galleries; or a TNT'ing might be best. He does have several works in the collection of the Art Gallery of New South Wales [16]. It is unclear if the ArtBank is a curated collection, or simply accepts artists donations. For an artist who has been practicing a long time, there seems to be an absence of press about his work. Perhaps he was better known as a teacher than an exhibitng artist? Netherzone (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - His own work (not just work he printed for other artists) is in the collection of the National Gallery of Art [17] - their collection search is buggy, I found this thru Google. That combined with the Art Gallery of New South Wales collection [18] means he passes WP:NARTIST with verifiable work held in several notable museum collections. The article needs an overhaul and would benefit by trimming excessive detail and unsourced/poorly material, but it should be kept. Netherzone (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That’s still only a database listing. The presumption of notability of NARTIST is overridden by the actual failure to meet GNG, and simply suggests that NARTIST, like so many SNGs, is too loose and needs tightening. If you can't find more than that, then this should still be deleted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • RandomCanadian, He meets criteria #4 of WP:NARTIST. I've never heard of NARTIST being overridden, since it has a high (not a loose) bar for achievement. Could you point to that policy or guideline, please? Netherzone (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Netherzone Under the "Additional criteria" header (which NARTIST is part of), "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Simply meeting the SNG criteria is not enough if there is not enough evidence that the subject actually meets WP:GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        I deepened the WP:BEFORE and found seven newspaper reviews on just the first few pages at Proquest, also found an ABC profile and a section of a book on Australian printmakers. These are not just name-checks, they are SIGCOV. This puts him over the bar of not only NARTIST but also GNG. -- Daily Telegraph:[19]; Newcastle Herald:[20]; Daily Times (Lahore):[21]; The Friday Times (Lahore)[22]; The Friday Times[23]; Pakistan Herald[24]; The Canberra Times[25]; ABC[26]; Section on him in this book: Australia Printmakers in the 1990s[27] -- Netherzone (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per evidence found by Netherzone. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Netherzone.4meter4 (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as his art is displayed in major galleries, and there are multiple reviews of his art.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:44, 8 September 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. – Joe (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Oxborough[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, fails WP:NBIO OGLV (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. OGLV (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 57 08:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I looked through the sources, there were quite a few there, but it's pretty much routine stuff, nothing extensive, nothing remotely interesting!! Fails GNG if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:GNG requires significant coverage from sources independent of the subject but I can barely find anything outside of Norwich City's own website Canaries.co.uk Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG, even if he fails NFOOTY. And being reserve goalkeeper for a pro side must mean something in my opinion.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per comment above. Finch14 (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. GNG is the only relevant guideline here and it is definitely not met. JoelleJay (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG - there's lots of coverage, which isn't surprising as a backup keeper for a top Championship team. Such as this. Nfitz (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is that significant coverage? The sum total of info on him there is

    The 20-year-old goalkeeper visited Youngs Park to present end-of-season awards to the Aylsham under-12s and give the club's goalkeepers some coaching tips.
    Oxborough was capped at under-16 and U17 level by England when he was younger and was training with the Canaries first team during the second half of last season.
    City's U23s keeper was also rewarded with a new contract in April, extending his deal until 2020, with the option of a further year.

    Barely 3 sentences covering his youth activity (plus a quote from him and someone else) in a local paper -- almost anyone could achieve that. JoelleJay (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I count 6 of 8 paragraphs. Scroll down past the ads. Nfitz (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you mean the quotes from Oxborough himself, which definitely don't contribute to notability?

        'I played my youth football for Hemsby Hornets, a time I will always remember,' the City youngster said of his visit. 'It's great to see youngsters here at Aylsham celebrating their season.
        'I didn't have facilities like these at Youngs Park when I was playing at this age so the boys and girls are very lucky.'

        Or the quote from the U16 player that just namedrops him?

        'Aylsham will always be my club and it was great to join in with all the young goalkeepers,' said Blair. 'It is good to see that the club hold training sessions for goalkeepers. Big thanks to Aston for supporting them this evening.'

        JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree with you. Nfitz (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL.4meter4 (talk) 15:55, 8 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artemano Canada[edit]

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

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

Non-notable furniture retailer. Doesn't have WP:SIGCOV. PepperBeast (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. References include articles from several different newspapers as well as two television programs. I think notability has been established. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per WP:HEY thanks to Eastmain; the references provided shows the chain easily meets WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there's other significant references as well such as the Ottawa Citizen. Nfitz (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.4meter4 (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:59, 8 September 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. – Joe (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artists for Charity[edit]

Artists for Charity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Received a little flutter of coverage in 2009, but not enough for WP:GNG. PepperBeast (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't see any past or present indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I note that the outcome of a previous AFD discussion was delete. PepperBeast (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The first AFD happened in 2006 prior to a bunch of news coverage of significance. The Washington Post article from 2012 is quality RS and the most significant source. And there is another Post article from May 15, 2016 I found entitled "For Ethiopian expatriates a rough homecoming" which also features Tamerat and her charity. In addition the article contains several sources from 2009 that are quality RS as mentioned by the nominator above. Altogether, this is enough quality RS over a period of seven years to show sustained significant coverage. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the Washington Post articles are enough for significant coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harun Rune[edit]

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

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

Non-notable musician, no reliable source coverage to speak of. Apple Music obviously isn't an acceptable source and the two other references are from blogs that simply repost people's press releases or review music for pay [28][29], so are not reliable or independent. No other usable sources found through WP:BEFORE. This is possibly A7able, but someone's been trying really hard to get this page created, so might as well send it to AfD to put it to bed once and for all. Spicy (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I prodded this page about three weeks ago. Like last time around, the subject is far away from meeting WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I found no evidence of coverage that would demonstate notability. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not pass WP:SINGER or GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above.4meter4 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:00, 8 September 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. – Joe (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of christians in North Korea[edit]

Persecution of christians in North Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is a POVFORK of Human rights in North Korea#Persecution of Christians and Buddhists. It may be possible to write a stand-alone article on Persecution of Christians in North Korea, but this is not that article. There are serious failed verification and POV issues with this article. For example, the article claims that Yad Vashem states that there is a genocide of Christians in North Korea, but it is not supported by the cited source (which is not a RS anyway). There is no evidence that the majority of reliable sources consider the persecution of Christians in North Korea to be a genocide, and Google Scholar results indicates that the reverse is the case.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 21:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This was before I had moved to article to a less over-the-top title and attempted to clean-up some of the mess made by its original creator... (in other words, Buidhe, I'm surprised this didn't trigger an edit conflict or something) Agree that this is a terrible article as it stands, but WP:DINC RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  RandomCanadian, I don't see this as a DINC case since in my opinion, none of the original article content was useful for Wikipedia. I would also be happy with a redirect to another article, however the original article creator did not seem to be getting the point so I thought that obtaining a clear consensus would be a good idea. (t · c) buidhe 22:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, I agree that the article was terrible, and there's not enough of it left to justify a full article separate from the relevant sub-section. If there's nobody willing to improve the article on a tight deadline; then the obvious alternative is to take the now plausible title an simply make it an ((r with possibilities)) back to the section mentioned by Buidhe. Hence redirect to Human rights in North Korea#Persecution of Christians and Buddhists (and delete the other one, which I've nominated at RfD). As I said, we must have edit conflicted, cause this is at the wrong title now. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh wait, the correctly capitalised version actually exists and wasn't just a piped link. In this case this is simple; speedy redirect as ((r from miscapitalisation)) and avoid all of this bureaucracy is the way to go, now. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck the bolded !votes, given the article has been dramatically altered, so they don't apply anymore; although I still have reservations given the useful content is basically just a split from an existing article, but nothing that warrants any further action at this time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has already been nominated for deletion in the past and it was not deleted. I see no reason to repeat this painful process over again. You also say that I have only one source. i actually included many sources, but it appears that someone deleted all but one of them. This is a case of Wikipedia:Over-hasty_Speedy_Deleters and WP:DINC Dunutubble (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are not reliable sources. You seem fairly new here, go read WP:RS. Self-published posts on medium and forbes; as well as opinion pieces; are not acceptable for statements of facts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK it's true that I shouldn't have chosen Forbes, but most of the Citations I had were not Forbes articles. Thank you for giving me that link though.Dunutubble (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, but with a deadline for improvements: I understand the topic to be of enough importance to have its own article. I also know there are plenty of reliable sources to support it. However, the article is in very poor shape; it should first have been drafted better before initial publication. I think @Dunutubble: should be given a chance to make those improvements, if s/he is motivated to work on it. If you need guidance on how to make a good article, feel free to ask editors, including myself. Also, let me invite @Finnusertop: to this deliberation since he is also highly involved in Nk in wikipedia.

Also @Dunutubble: the original title of "Genocide of Christians in North Korea" was in my view not accurate nor neutral, and there is a discussion now about deleting the page now even as a redirect. It is laudable that you sympathize with the plight of Christians in NK, and you can within Wikipedia help to shed light on the topic. You just have to do so neutrally, without exaggerations. It is better to describe human rights abuses accurately than overstate them and then lose credibility on the whole issue. Welcome to Wikipedia; it is normal to make these mistakes at the beginning and I went through it as well. I understand it can be frustrating when your work is being considered for deletion etc. I hope you can be part of the community and we can support you with guidance on how to make contributions aligned with the wiki policies. Respectfully, Al83tito (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is not significant coverage.RamotHacker (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. While I believe the topic is notable enough to justify a standalone wikipedia article, this isn't it - any such article should begin by splitting off the relevant section of Human rights in North Korea. Until that happens, this article serves better as a redirect. BilledMammal (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per WP:HEY. With other commenters adding additional sources, I've taken it upon myself to merge relevant content from Human rights in North Korea in. As such, my arguments for redirect no longer stand. In retrospect, perhaps I should have done this at the start. In any case, I will note for the closer that if this is to be kept, it needs to be moved to Persecution of Christians in North Korea, replacing the current redirect BilledMammal (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (with great regret) Redirect -- This is a highly notable subject and ought to have a proper article of its own, but the present stub is so poor as to need TNT. The view of Yad Vashem, a Jewish organisation is not relevant: they are only expressing their POV on the subject. This is inevitably a difficult article to write, as Christianity is practised in North Korea clandestinely. Organisations like Open Doors, Christian Solidarity International, and a few more may have some idea of the number of Christians, but they do not publish this kind of data, as it is likely to bring down wrath on Christians' heads. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added sources from The Guardian ,CNN ,Forbes ,The Washington Post ,BBC ,Fox News which clearly state that Christians are Persecuted in North Korea. The topic passes WP:GNG.But it needs cleanup and rewrite but I think that it is necessary to keep this article Persecution of Christians in North Korea. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly notable. Super Ψ Dro 18:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the aforementioned new reliable sources references added to the article since nomination such as The Guardian, BBC, CNN and others shows that the subject passes WP:GNG and now it can be expanded using those references, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Clearly meets GNG based on sources added.4meter4 (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly a notable topic based on newly added sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:39, 8 September 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 undeletion of these articles. – Joe (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Jellyfish Kid (Kamp Koral)[edit]

The Jellyfish Kid (Kamp Koral) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Mostly unsourced, appears to be mainly a plot, and for the most part seems to be copied from SpongeBob FANDOM. Magitroopa (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasoning, all plot and appears to be copied from Rugrats FANDOM.:

Second Time Around (Rugrats) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Magitroopa (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Magitroopa (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:16, 8 September 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 Ford E-Series and Ford Aerostar. Note that after the merge is completed, the original title must be retained (as a redirect) to preserve its edit history and attribution; see ((R from merge)). – Joe (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ford VN platform[edit]

Ford VN platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This page is purely WP: OR and shows no proof of its existence. I can tell you, that it doesn't exist on a corporate level. Someone here definitely made it up and never provided any citations to back it up. Carmaker1 (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the two content sections to Ford E-Series and Ford Aerostar respectively, then delete this title. The two vehicles/platforms are unrelated and there's no reason to have them combined in the same article and therefore no reason to keep this article title since there does not appear to be a "VN platform" as such. --Sable232 (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (for now at least) After digging through the history, it looks like the VN58/VN127 text has been a part of things here since this was created back in 2004; VN1 was also added a lifetime ago. (My primary contribution here was expanding the text beyond two sentences). Will this article move past the point of being a stub? No, and it doesn't need to be expanded beyond its current state (barring any changes in production down the line). Should it need some improvement in its source content? I do agree with that; at this point, finding sources to back this content (that aren't Wikipedia copypasted...) will be challenging. This is the direction I would move towards first. -SteveCof00 (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and delete title per Sable232.4meter4 (talk) 16:34, 8 September 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. – Joe (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen A. Chang[edit]

Stephen A. Chang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Was deleted through prod, and then recreated. Working actor, but with no real significant roles, fails WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's very hard to say where the article fits here. On one hand, the actor had appeared only in three feature films, and even that was more like a cameo or supporting role. On the other hand, he voiced a video game, and many actors don't have time to do that. My feeling is that if we will delete it - somebody will recreate it, sooner or later.--Filmomusico (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. He played a prominent role voice acting in a notable video game, however, that might be his peak role notability-wise, and the rest of his acting in the future might not be as notable that. I would say keep for now, but anything could happen. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nomination is based on the nominator's opinion of whether the subject should be notable rather than any reasoned analysis or review of coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) If his most prominent role was voicing Jesse in The Last of Us Part II, then note that his performance had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. The citations in the article are either unreliable, interviews, or passing mentions. It wouldn't make sense to redirect this name to the game's article. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 05:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and WP:SALT. Fails WP:NACTOR. KidAd • SPEAK 21:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Waddles. Oppose bad faith call to salt the article without any compelling evidence to support the assertion. Haleth (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am not seeing a good policy based rationale from the keep voters. With only one significant role to speak of, he clearly fails WP:NACTOR. Further, there is no in depth significant coverage in independent sources. The article substantially relies on interviews in gamer blogs and ezines. However, interviews have historically been discredited as RS at AFD towards SIGCOV because they essentially lack independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:38, 8 September 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 23:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tebobonga[edit]

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

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

This article is about a fictitious settlement in Nonouti (it is only a very small house clinic for one nurse). Created with another ones in 2008 from a list of places in this atoll. --Arorae (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ths discussion page was not created with the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the article. --Finngall ^talk 19:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. @Arorae: Not fictitious. Seems like a valid settlement. Listed on GeoNames (00° 41' 00" S, 174° 28' 00" E (-.683333, 174.466667) MGRS 60MTE1803124397 Health facilities include Tebobonga Dispensary/clinic: 1 clinic, 2 wards, 2 cooking houses, 2 toilets according to page 48 of http://www.climate.gov.ki/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Nonouti-Social-and-Economic-Report-2007-2-of-3.pdf Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain:: you have a very weird notion of settlement notion: this is only the name of the clinic (Tebobonga Dispensary/clinic: 1 clinic, 2 wards, 2 cooking houses, 2 toilets) and not of a village or a settlement. But perhaps you have no idea about the settlements and kaainga in Kiribati?--Arorae (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Could not verify the existence of a settlement with this name. The two sources are an entry in a list of medical clinics and a magnetic declination calculator that appears to be bot-generated; these fail the WP:NGEO sourcing requirements which specifically exclude maps and tables from determining notability. Even if this is confirmed to be a settlement, it would fall under Populated places without legal recognition which need to meet GNG per WP:GEOLAND #2. –dlthewave ☎ 17:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, unless someone is able to verify its existence using means heretofore unattempted. jp×g 19:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dlthewave.4meter4 (talk) 16:46, 8 September 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. – Joe (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mio Destino[edit]

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

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

Very few sources, some dead, not sure notability is established, can't find significantly more on the web, tone possibly promotional. BlackholeWA (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not seeing that business meets the criteria at WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 16:48, 8 September 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, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Dumbo[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. I'm surprised this draft was approved as an article. Based on the sources cited in the article, I don't see how Dumbo is notable. Many of the sources are the Daily Mail, which isn't good for much except gossip and tabloid material. Many of the sources concern Dumbo's relationship with a female comedian, who herself is not notable, and whether the relationship is real, a social media scam, or who knows what. Only one of the awards is cited, and that citation is the Daily Mail; reading it, you quickly see that the award is not important except maybe as an advertisement. The article was created by now-blocked socks, and my guess UPEs. Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zambia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as pre nomination I also belive that it Fails the WP:GNG and I think this was more of a favour cause the user that started this was blocked indefinitely. -PK YellowWisdom (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 16:49, 8 September 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, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Azad Asif[edit]

Adnan Azad Asif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails GNG. Sources are unreliable and trivial mention. ~Yahya (✉) • 20:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ~Yahya (✉) • 20:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~Yahya (✉) • 20:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Afc was rejected by User:GoingBatty, i don't know why it was moved to main namespace. Anyway, Delete the article. As i understand Bengali, i can say this: information presented in this article aren't present in the sources. Probably original research or the person himself created this. A part from 2nd and 12th source, none of the sources are about this person or talk about this person (no significant coverage), all the sources are passing mentions/trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG & WP:CREATIVE. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:OR per আফতাবুজ্জামান.4meter4 (talk) 16:50, 8 September 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. Upgraded to CSD (non-admin closure) MoonlightVector 20:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of Christians in North Korea[edit]

Genocide of Christians in North Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Possibly false, also violating WP:npov MoonlightVector 19:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI see no reason to delete such an article. This is a well-documented and significant event which deserves to be kept. And how is it false? I added many citations to reliable sources. Of course it's real. Dunutubble (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welp good... i Caught you out. MoonlightVector 20:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this topic passes the WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On Meaning[edit]

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

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Searching Google, Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, Newspapers.com, and the Internet Archive yields practically no sources. It’s difficult to formulate a search query for such a generic title and I’m not confident that I adequately searched for non-English sources so someone might be able to find some sources to save the article, but I doubt it. Currently cited sources are almost entirely passing mentions of the show from sources of questionable reliability. The host might be notable, but the show does not WP:INHERIT that notability. The page is an orphan—no other Wikipedia pages link to it—and as far as I can tell there are no good redirect targets. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article is no longer orphan. It has been covered by Channel 20 (Israel)^[1] which is the one of the biggest TV channels in Isreal. All of its chapters appears on the channel's website. It was also covered by Arutz Sheva^[2] which is also a big media network in Israel. All of its chapters appears on the channel's website. The large amount of downloads (400,000 and more) and getting to the finals in Geektime's podcasts contest are proof notability.Ofir michael (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented by Ofir. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This podcast is one of the popular podcasts in Israel with already 100+ episodes and keep counting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.29.14.114 (talk) 07:16, 6 Sep 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Popular podcast and has sources. Free1Soul (talk) 16:12, 6 September 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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TV Mall[edit]

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

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

Was formerly a South African teleshopping network on satellite (allegedly the 'first ever' in that country, which is questionably sourced), but less than two years later was thrown off that service; since then its only existence has been as a YouTube/social media channel with less than 2,000 subscribers, thus it's lost its claim to the bare WP:N/WP:BCAST it ever held, if any. Also to be considered that the network was a part-time effort and has never carried a full-time 168-hour schedule in a week, even as a programming loop. PROD was rejected, but no incoming links from any other articles. Nate • (chatter) 22:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A topic does not lose its notability by its death or disestablishment. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response The network still exists as a YouTube channel, and has never filled a 24-hour broadcast day with content. Unless this was a network from before the age of digital satellite or cable where it had to be limited by channel capacity or is a sports network, we generally don't have articles here for part-time channels, especially shopping networks that carry little original content (most of the network's content is DRTV ads and products imported from the States and the UK). Nate • (chatter) 02:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Eastmain. Once a threshold of notability has been met it can not be unmet. The fact that a particular company at one time met BCAST means it always has made that benchmark, even if it currently does not meet that criteria. As an encyclopedia we look at the entire history of a topic, not just it's present state. That said, I didn't take a look at sourcing for this topic, so I am not judging my keep vote based on whether the topic meets GNG, but merely responding to a flawed nomination rationale.4meter4 (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But the network originates none of its own content. We usually have shown little patience with infomercial channels, especially ones that have an extremely low viewership. No new links have been added in the last two weeks; this is a literal orphan article. Nate • (chatter) 03:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, flawed arguments. Being an orphan does not qualify an article for deletion or impact it's notability in any way. De-orphaning articles is a simple matter of wiki linking articles into the encyclopedia which is easily done with television stations by finding relevant list articles. I can't comment on the no original content claim. Usually infomercial channels film their own infomercials, so it would be odd to claim it has no original content as an infomercial itself is original content. Were they importing infomercials from outside and simply leasing out their channel space? If not BCAST has clearly been met. Lastly, what's your evidence of low viewership when it was on satelite TV?4meter4 (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I...need to cite the fact that a shopping channel has low viewership? I have already cited that the YouTube channel has less than 2,000 subscribers, their Instagram is <1,400 followers, and their Twitter is <1,000 followers. It should be self-evident that it's low-viewed solely on that, and shopping channels never subscribe to ratings services. And they import most of their infomercials from the UK and US, just adding in a local voiceover where needed. Nate • (chatter) 21:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. "Once notable, always notable" is relevant if the topic was once notable, but I see no indication that this minor infomercial channel ever was. – Joe (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indication from sources that it ever was notable and that is despite being an English language media platform. Only sources I could find were primary, press releases and blogs ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:13, 10 September 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. While this is numerically even, multiple "delete" !voters have made the point that the coverage consists only of passing mentions. This is borne out by the sources provided here, and has not been rebutted. One "keep" voter argues that NSOFTWARE may not reflect the current reality of source material; while this might be a valid argument in general, a specific AfD is not the forum to debate this, and in this discussion it doesn't carry much weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SigmaXL[edit]

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

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

Aside from the links to the company's own website, NONE of the references indicate notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Meltzer (talk • contribs) 15:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Filed incomplete nomination by Phil Meltzer. ✗plicit 03:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, lack of WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE shows only primary sources and webpages for the product. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Notability is supported in the following references:

1. . S. Tereza and N. Darja, "Software support of nonparametric control charts," 2018 19th International Carpathian Control Conference (ICCC), 2018, pp. 456-461, doi: 10.1109/CarpathianCC.2018.8399673.

   "SIGMAXL: It is a leading supplement of MS EXCEL for the statistical and graphical analysis. This tool was designed to be cost effective, efficient, but easy to use. It is ideal for training of the Lean Six Sigma or for use in the courses of statistics at a university. An example of the SigmaXL work environment is in the figure 7."

2. . Sara Fontdecaba, Pere Grima & Xavier Tort-Martorell (2014) Analyzing DOE With Statistical Software Packages: Controversies and Proposals, The American Statistician, 68:3, 205-211, DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2014.923784.

   "This article studies and evaluates how five well-known statistical packages—JMP, Minitab, SigmaXL, Statgraphics, and Statistica—address the problem of analyzing the significance of effects in unreplicated factorial designs."

3. . Williams, B., Sayer, N. J. (2012). Lean For Dummies. United Kingdom: Wiley.

   "Excel can be programmed to do more, and add-on products like SigmaXL (www.SigmaXL.com) will provide nearly all of what mere mortals will ever need." (page 207)

4. . Morgan, J., Brenig-Jones, M. (2012). Lean Six Sigma For Dummies. United Kingdom: Wiley.

   "For more complex statistical analysis, try the Excel plug-in SigmaXL which lets you produce a variety of displays including SIPOCSs cause and effect." (page 18)

5. . Bass, I., Lawton, B. (2009). Lean Six Sigma Using SigmaXL and Minitab. United States: McGraw-Hill Education.

   "Since Lean Six Sigma is data-driven, any project conducted using this methodology will require the use of some software. We elected to use SigmaXL and Minitab. Most organizations use Microsoft Excel to organize and analyze their data. Excel is equipped with a substantial amount of tools for descriptive statistics and probability calculations but it still lacks capabilities for more complex data analyses. SigmaXl is a powerful statistics software suite that adds those capabilities to Microsoft Excel." (page 2) 🖉]] 3:30, 26 August 2021 (ET)

Above made by Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:1D60:27AC:BD9C:2FDB:DDD7:B42F. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, all of the sources cited above are offhand mentions and well short of WP:SIGCOV. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Source #2 is the prestigious journal, The American Statistician, which states that SigmaXL is a well known statistical package. Source #5 is an entire book published by McGraw Hill that utilizes SigmaXL software throughout. 15:27, 2 September 2021 (ET)

• Above comment made by Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:1D60:27AC:BD9C:2FDB:DDD7:B42F. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I scratched the keep vote above because the anon ip voted twice in this discussion. (See [30])4meter4 (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per others above.4meter4 (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep SigmaXL is indeed very well known in the Six Sigma community and has been around for 20+ years.DavidReilly007 (talk) 9:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Above comment made by user whose only contributions are to his user page and this afd. Seddon ^talk 22:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep passes WP:BASIC, and while the article currently is somewhat promotional that can be fixed. There is increasingly a need to upgrade WP:NSOFTWARE a guideline, given that tertiary about software will not be written the same way as books or other products. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, coverage supports that this software meets WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Keep suggestions offer nothing of substance: The subject of the article may be "very well known" in a specific "community," such as computer programmers, but this means nothing on its own. We need specific, third-party sources that support notability; not opinions. Other suggestions to Keep only claim "there are sources out there" but, again, this on its own simply won't do. Others offered the fact that prestigious and notable publishers "use" SigmaXL, but, again, this offers nothing in way of notability support: Where are the texts? The only offering of supporting sources came from an ISP whose only contribution has been to the article under consideration. In itself, this is, of course, not an issue, but the sources offered have, for better or worse, nothing more than passing mentions as part of lists (e.g. Tereza), name drops (e.g. Williams, Morgan), manuals (e.g. Bass), and so on. A gallant effort to invent notability, certainly, but there's no there there. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sources provided acknowledged this plugins existence but not it's inherent notability. Lack of significant coverage. Seddon ^talk 22:28, 12 September 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. Based on the source analysis, I do not believe this meets GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AscentialTest[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. My web search (read: WP:BEFORE) showed no additional, unconnected sources, so unfortunately it cannot be shown that this subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and so it fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I disagree. I'm not sure what exactly you want with regard to independent sources but there are several on the page--all from independent sources not affiliated with Zeenyx Software. Could you please provide a better reason than, "showed no additional, unconnected sources, so unfortunately it cannot be shown that this subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and so it fails"? I don't understand exactly what you are looking for? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjt2470 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am looking for 1) significant coverage 1) in reliable sources 3) that are independent of the subject (see WP:GNG for details). Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thanks Walter but I still do not agree. I have eight citations, all from independent sources that meet your WP:GNG "Significant coverage," "Reliable," and "Sources" definition. These are all from companies that may (or may not) have a relationship with Zeenyx but they are independent. You keep saying "My web search showed no additional, unconnected sources, so unfortunately it cannot be shown that this subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and so it fails" and yet I have eight independent sources that tell a different story. Can you please explain what exactly you mean by your statement? What sort of web search are you doing and what are your expectations regarding "unconnected sources?"
  • The companies that are selling plugins are not independent. The reviews are, but they're mostly brief, but are those reviews from reliable sources or blogs? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here are the citation explanations: Citation #1 Matryxsoft.com is an independent authorized reseller that sells multiple QA-related tools. Citation #2 This company is an independent authorized reseller that sells AscentialTest, you may be correct about this citation and I will remove. Citation #3 Dr. Dobbs is an independent evaluator dedicated to software development/test. Citation #4 IT Central is an independent product review site (some of these reviews are quite lengthy). Citation #5 Gartner Peer Reviews is an independent product review site. Citation #6 QA TestingTools.com is an independent QA focused portal that reviews many QA tools. Citation #7 Atlassian Marketplace, this is the plug-in you mentioned and there is a plugin available with a review from Atlassian. This is still independant and owned by Atlassian. User can view several plug-ins that do the same thing to compare. Citation #8 AscentialTest by Zeenyx Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine by Bruce Armstrong, August 01, 2013 (an independent review article by a published author). If I remove the citation #1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 would that satisfy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjt2470 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resellers and Atlassian Marketplace are not independent of the subject; they only make money when they sell the product. Dr. Dobbs is fine. IT Central is one of those unreliable sources as there is no author of the "review" and their about us page claims the site is a "crowdsourced knowledge platform" and no, that does not meet RS. Gartner may be a RS (although you do have to pay to be considered), but their peer reviews are user-generated and in no way reliable; one of the databases I discussed. qatestingtools.com again suffers from a lack of an author, editorial board, and anything else that would make it a WP:RS. The short review by Bruce Armstrong is a blog and not a RS. One RS. One source does not equate to sources, and so fails general notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Walter has done an excellent review of the various sources, and made it clear that WP:THREE is not met. My own search has not turned up anything better; as such, delete. BilledMammal (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Walter Görlitz's source analysis.4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 8 September 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 Liane den Haan. Content remains in the history if there's anything that isn't already on that page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fraction Den Haan[edit]

Fraction Den Haan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Dutch member of parliament (MP) Liane den Haan left her party (50PLUS) in May 2021, and she continued as an independent or "partyless" politician. As all MPs in the House of Representatives have to belong to a parliamentary group (fractie in Dutch and incorrectly translated as "fraction" in this article and its title) for voting purposes, Den Haan leaving her party triggered the automatic creation of her own group Fractie Den Haan. This parliamentary "group" consists of Den Haan an no one else, and it is not a political party. Since it is just the name under which Liane den Haan operates in parliament, I do not think it justifies an article of its own. Information and the logo could easily be placed on Den Haan's own page, since anything about this "group" necessarily concerns her. Tristan Surtel (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Tristan Surtel (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tristan Surtel (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ovbious no separate article is needed for one person. Reywas92^Talk 17:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Liane den Haan. The reasoning is correct. The suggestion to just delete is incorrect. gidonb (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Liane den Haan.4meter4 (talk) 18:45, 8 September 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) 20:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CILICANT[edit]

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

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

The company fails NCORP. There is no significant coverage. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - likely undisclosed paid-for spam. I've blocked the author for this. MER-C 17:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep added more reliable references. Passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. 171.76.245.252 (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails both WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. I took a look at the references: 1 does not mention CILICANT; 2 as it says, an "advertorial"; 3 "Moneycontrol journalists were not involved in the creation of the article"; 4 "advertorial"; 5 "This is a partnered post"; 6 routine coverage of a funding round; 7 does not mention CILICANT; 8 an interview; 9 "advertorial"; 10 derived from company announcement; 11 derived from company announcement; 12 derived from company announcement.

None of these are suitable and I cannot find anything better. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Malcolmxl5.4meter4 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AcoustID[edit]

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

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

It fails WP:NMUSIC as per article. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Extremely curt nomination with no evidence of WP:BEFORE. While the claim is it fails WP:NMUSIC that assumes is is in-scope for that criteria, I'm not immediately convinced it is. On quite interesting note is MusicBrainz has a specific mention at NMUSIC, and then at the MusicBrainz article AcoustID and Chromaprint are specifically mentioned (albeit uncited) in the context of fingerprinting. Should a competent and diligent BEFORE have picked this up, and perhaps also that the Chromaprint algorithm is perhaps the more important related topic. In all events nom. seems in good standing, albeit seemed to have a high rate of reverting problematic edits, possibly an indicator of automation, and their talk page had lots of unsigned (by others) discussions. In passing note I've added (Chikanbanjar, 2017) to the article and claim RS towards GNG/SIGCOV Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Djm-leighpark and WP:HEY. While this is a music related topic, it doesn't fit under any of the NMUSIC SNG descriptors. It also doesn't fit under WP:NCORP as it's not tied to a company and is an open source free web service. As such, our default policy guideline in this case is GNG and I agree with Djm-leighpark that SIGOV has been met with the addition of the sources recently added. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep; easily passes WP:SIGCOV in this case. Worth looking at WP:NSOFTWARE which isn't a policy, but relevant as well if it didn't pass GNG. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I discounted the sockpuppetry. I advise our unregistered friends to familiarise themselves with the policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia, in particular the need for evidence from reliable and independent sources to show that the topic has gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

H.R. Economic Model[edit]

H.R. Economic Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Economic theory lacks breadth of coverage- all sources are related to its creator. Merging may be an alternative, if a suitable target can be found. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, due to improvements MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Unwithdrawn by nominator, sorry for the back-and-forth. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I myself am doubtful this article can be merged into another, as the contents are vague and the sources of doubtful value (with multiple grammar errors and nonacademic backgrounds). I additionally question this article's notability in the face of such criticism, and for these reasons support deletion. --A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepAn article related to Human Resource Economic Model cited with many reliable news, education websites and JSTOR. Added other references that are also from reliable resources. And the article is a generic information provider on a general topic of "Human Resource Economic Model".Benny Crude (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub. Spicy (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like a notable topic for me that is cited with well references. However the creator added them recently. On the basis of newly added references, I am in support of Keep.JeepersClub (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub. Spicy (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which references in particular do you think are key to establishing notability? MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:After adding the more references by creator and as per WP:HEY.Johnson Wagart (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub. Spicy (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-encyclopedic: read the contents, sucg h as "H.R. Economic system provides the aforesaid intellectual capability to Humankind ..There are various types of economic systems are available in public domain, Whereas Capitalism & Communism are consider as two major Economic systems. Adam Smith is called father of Capitalism[6][7] and Karl Marx is called father of Communism. " Even if this were put into idiomatic English, it's at the level of a primary school.. There are no significant third party sources. 1. and 4 are by the inventor, 2 &5 are press releases where the inventor is simply quoted , 3 is not actually about the subject though it happens to contain the words Human Relations as do tens of thousands of other articles, 6, 7, & 8 are not about the subject. MrsSnoozyTurtle, please look again. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks DGG for looking into this in more detail. I didn't want to drag this out if there was little support for it. But you do raise some very good points, so I have un-withdrawn my nomination. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per my opinion, an introduction of new economic system is a notable concept to me, meanwhile its true and fair statement against Communism and capitalism both are major economic system and other economic systems as socialism, mixed economy and others has been developed from the root of either Communism or capitalism (as per universal truth of Economics). Meanwhile to use the words as Primary School against any creator is like to feel inferior complex to creator. While statements of creator are true, reliable and used simple English words for batter understanding to common man. Although we have to mind the statement of Hon'ble CO- founder of Wikipedia “Larry Sanger” as the Wikipedia taken over by left during mid July 2021. Passes WP:GNG 202.179.75.252 (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub. Spicy (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep After analyzing the entire article and its references and the above comments the topic seems notable. Passes WP:GNG.DJRSD (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub. Spicy (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. With all due respect, there is something strange about the keep opiners here. I noticed that Benny Crude, JeepersClub, Johnson Wagart, the ip and DJRSD all signed their posts without a space before the username. Benny Crude is a new user and the creator of H.R. Economic Model. JeepersClub became active on 25 August and is already a quite prolific AFD contributor. Johnson Wagart was active for two days in June 2021, then returned on 28 August to !vote in 10 AFD's in 9 minutes. Geschichte (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, gibberish and publicity stunt. Citations present in the article that are actually about the subject, is either a publication in a pay to publish journal with no academic value (ref 1) or are non independent PR pieces. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft Delete There is no doubt that reffrence no.1 has less academic creadivili but in this matter I show that first article of H.R Economic model was published in may 2020, by ABP Bareau, (seem as organic article) , recently WIPO publish article on H.R Economic Model at 10 june2021, its truth that that any University required time for P.H.D research upto 5 years and more and valuable research paper may take upto 2 years for publication . Whenever low academic value research paper. Publish the research article immediately. Therefore either we have to wait for next some period for any reputated university research paper or sock delete ( as per decided by administrator). 49.205.235.231 (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• — 49.205.235.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment: Dear friends- Still, I am not belong to Wikipedia community. I don't know whether it's good or bad ethical behaviour to post comment over here, even that I am not familiar with Wikipedia notability guidelines, my grandson help me to post a comment herein, With profession, I am being a Economics professor from CCS University Meerut since 1992, during last month, I assigned an assignment to B.A Economics students, on topic, Mankind may be get rid from poverty through H.R. Economic Model, and suggested them to got idea form Wikipedia references. My students raised complaint to me about deletion of this page thereafter I read the comment seriously. thereafter from my side (if applicable) HR. Economic Model is really serious and debatable concept among the Economics community. we are try to map out the actual picture of this Economic technology, even that inventor of HR Economic Model release the only 10% part of information, and 90% of information is still awaited for a public domain as mechanism, valuation formula, Coefficient formula etc. from my side, it's my humble request before Wikipedia, please don't remove the primary source as WIPO link, which is still required to understand the this Economic Model. Whenever another secondary sources are available at Google search, therefore no issue if removed. My further request to Economics community to make arrangement for open platform as Quora for discussion purpose to map out this Economic System. 2409:4053:2D16:5D24:0:0:5F0A:1008 (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Without prejudice- From the all above discussion, it's my opinion (would be wrong). HR Economic Model is more emphasis towards Economic community rather than general Wikipedia community, therefore we have to requested for intellectual Wikipedia person from Economics field to provide the opinion upon basics and principles of H.R economic model. if intellectual person of Economics field have opinion for deletion, then we have delete the page or a vice versa. In this rare case, we have to more focus upon material not source. 42.111.0.71 (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment :- I have designated as Wikipedia administrator, IP blocker, etc, with approx. 1m edits, joined Wikipedia since 2009. Due to high level intolerance behavior in this AFD discussion, first time I am bound to make comment through IP address, whereas case is simple, a group of School friends, whereas all are Wikipedia confirmed users, discuss a topic in a group, and became agree upon the common point, thereafter put there common point on Wikipedia afd platform simultaneously, and all are blocked on the impugned ground as they were not active at Wikipedia platform, commented simultaneously, were active on same period of time, whenever comments would be easily rejected by administrators. Now discuss the topic of notability, As per my opinion, in the series of UNO, WHO, UNSC, World Bank, WIPO is considering as organization of 193 countries, every statement of WIPO website is administrable before all Supreme Courts, Universities, and every educational institutions of 193 countries worldwide, Therefore WIPO reference link is sufficient for notability of this article, Meanwhile the claim of H.R.Economic Model shall be validated before Worldwide, still any University or any economic institutions still denied with logically, as per legal se. 61.2.16.132 (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as clearly promotional and per WP:NOT for things made up on day. What a trainwreck! Geschichte (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Geschicte, Under respect and regards, as per my opinion, your reply was completely illogically, if any logically fact available, kindly add in proper manner in AFD, now it's my advice to you, read the All statement upto initio to understand the ground level of this Article, from my observation, HR Economic Model is not a just Economic system, seem to be is an organised community, who strong believe that human resource is an asset, therefore every person worldwide has its own value and HR Economic Model provide the intellectual capability to valued it, and aforesaid value is convertible into money or a liquidity. they have strong believe that, if every person has its own monetary value, and further utilize monetary value in the economic activity, thereafter no capitalism is required and mankind shall be get rid from poverty, On the other hand, I don’t expect, for this community is required Wikipedia platform for publicity stand. because of, they are seem to enough competent to gain publicity from other sources, example as, this community has been passed 1st Stage as WIPO, and It might be possible to approach 2nd Stage for World Economic form soon. Now a simple question to you, reply logically ,if this community arranges an conference at International level or World Economic platform, passed the statement on that platform, for any reason like as a Wikipedia has been hacked by left or a capitalism , therefore H.R Economic Model never be acceptable at Wikipedia platform, in that case, how will you defend the Wikipedia's credibility, reliability and integrity at World Economic Platform. Whenever is true that aforesaid statement shall be a high-level publicity stand? 2405:204:3486:487E:81B8:72C7:EBFE:EC80 (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Geschichte's comments. It seems that you (the IP editor) are judging this article based on personal biases rather than Wikipedia's policies. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP, are you saying that Wikipedia is the main platform to diffuse information about the H.R. model? This affirms my notion that the page tries to promote an idea that has not gained traction in the outside world. Geschichte (talk) 14:12, 8 September 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 Barclays Center. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of concerts at Barclays Center[edit]

List of concerts at Barclays Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A running list of events at a large venue seems like a WP:NOT issue. We don't need to be an extension of the venue's website. Also difficult to find non-promotional material which treats all of these as a group. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Definitely not something we need to keep track of... and I'm having a hard time seeing why we even would want to. Agreed with nom that this is WP:NOT routine coverage. Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Barclays Center per this fairly similar discussion. No opposition to outright deletion either. Seems to be a NOT as the two users above have said. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Barclays Center only to preserve article history. The article has some potentially valuable sources/content which could be applied/merged elsewhere through selective use in relevant articles on performers, concert tours, and the venue itself.4meter4 (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA Division I men's soccer players with 7 or more goals in a game[edit]

List of NCAA Division I men's soccer players with 7 or more goals in a game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not a statistics database. While a extremely rare occurence, 7 goals in one game in NCAA seems like a quite arbitrary topic. Why the cutoff at 7 when 4, 5 and 6 are also very rare? The navigation template at the bottom also contains redlinks for "at least 15 points", "30 saves" and other weird cutoffs. Furthermore, no entry in this list is newer than 26 years old, and given how soccer functions, its potential for growth is very limited. Thus, the small list can also be merged somewhere as an WP:ATD - though the issue with arbitrariness persists. Geschichte (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 8 goals in one game sounds impressive, but is it really when they played Southeastern Bible College that apparently had just 189 students (in 2008)? Sure Bernal was on a DI team, but they were playing a then-NAIA, now-DIII team. And the source 2 does NOT verify 8 goals and instead says "INDIVIDUAL RECORDS Most Goals, Game: 5 Marco Ribera" Then [31] says Kositzki had scored 17 and 16 points in two games, not 7. So the data here seems to be poor, with little meaning. Reywas92^Talk 15:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - what a bizarre list. Why 7, why not 6 or 8? WP:NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 21:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. No evidence that this is a significant number, and it's covered in multiple sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Joseph2302: - presume you mean not covered.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I do... Joseph2302 (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Strange and random list. Finch14 (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – the reason for the cutoff point, I would assume, is due to page 3 of the NCAA men's soccer records book. It only lists the players that scored at least seven goals in a game, hence the reason for the arbitrary limit. All that said, it still fails NOTSTATS and may never be added to, considering that same book mentions on the same page that no player has scored more than five goals in a game since 1998. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 19:44, 5 September 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. Title ambiguity is not a valid WP:DELREASON. Concerns about promotional tone and lack of secondary sources were raised but addressed through editing. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trustmark[edit]

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

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

Causes confusion with the company "Trustmark Corp." of which there's no page. Pearsejward (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Potential confusion with another company with a similar name is not a reason for deletion, but rather for renaming. The company appears to be notable, and so does the other Trustmark, a holding company for a bank. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but either consider renaming to clarify which of the two companies this is, or create a stub for the other one, and a redirect at the top of each article, making readers aware of the existence of the two, and giving them an easy route from one to the other. In view of the fact both are holding companies, it might be easiest to adopt the latter. Elemimele (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. is there some sort of hatnote for this case?^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The draft about Trustmark reads like an advertisement; in addition to that, there are no references cited that are independent of the subject and reliable. If there is extensive news coverage or independent sources covering the subject, it needs to be cited in the article. Multi7001 (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. There are a ton of articles on and about the company in the Chicago Tribune archives (over 500 hits), some of them flattering and others critical. I added three articles, two on charitable programs and one a critical look at the company which was an early important case in the application of the Affordable Care Act. Two of those articles made the front page of the Chicago Tribune. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Gannon[edit]

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

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

Fails GNG and NBOX. My before search mostly found newspaper fight schedules/results and two articles from a local newspaper and a Las Vegas news site. The best I could find was this short article detailing a fight. None of which can be classified as significant coverage. ².O.^Boxing 13:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 13:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 13:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 13:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I find it a bit surprising that the IBA championship does not satisfy NBOX, but it doesn't. I have not been able to find enough news coverage to meet GNG either, and the sources used in the article are just fight listings.--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and winning the IBA championship does not meet WP:NBOX.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The argument that there is no treatment of this group of people as a group, particularly because it is an everchanging group, is a persuasive one, and those arguing to keep have not addressed it. A radical reworking of the topic of the list is outside the scope of the AfD, but if someone wants to work on such, they may request a draftspace copy. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of living silent film actors[edit]

List of living silent film actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NOTTEMPORARY. There are only three actors on the list and the youngest included actor is 92 so in a few years this list will be empty. If a topic won't be notable 20 years from now then it's not notable today. pburka (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to this argument any "list of living people" article should be deleted because eventually they will all die. A discussion on whether or not these kinds of lists should exist can happen elsewhere but not here. I don't think the nominator has given a valid reason to delete this article. Rhino131 (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The valid reason is that the topic is not notable. If we agree that the list will eventually become empty and be deleted, then we are saying that in a few years it will not be notable. Since notability is not temporary, the topic was never notable and should be deleted immediately. pburka (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is determined by existing sources, so I would argue the topic could be notable even if the list is empty. If the community decides the topic is not notable based on sources, that's fine, but I'm not swayed by the NOTTEMPORY argument. Rhino131 (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Okay, but what sources discuss the group of toddlers who were in a movie in 1929 that are still alive???? All sources here are about their appearances, nothing about this group or the importance of a 92-year old former extra! This is entirely arbitary, one could select any sort of occupation or event and give the oldest remaining unrelated individuals, but that's not a notable list. Your !vote contests the nom but is not a valid reason to keep the page. Reywas92^Talk 22:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Rhino. As a side note, this list should be re-worked to the longest living list of actors from the silent era, to avoid it becoming empty in the near future. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it really interesting how long they lived, when they are known for something else? Seems somewhat trivial... Geschichte (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree that that's utterly trivial. There are some other "Longest lived..." lists, but we shouldn't have that for any arbitrary subset of any occupation. Moreover, that's a totally different concept, since this were child actors to be alive now, but that would include then-adult actors who died long ago. Looking forward to wasting time on another AFD when this is soon empty! Reywas92^Talk 04:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. None of the keep !voters have argued that the topic meets our notability guidelines. Furthermore, I suspect that this list may be WP:OR. These are all child actors who fell out of the spotlight many decades ago so their deaths might not be widely publicized. Only one of the three actors has her own Wikipedia page. The Watson family page indicates that Billy and Garry are both "living as of 2021" but provides no citation for that claim. pburka (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not sure what the point of this page was in the first place, no indication they are discussed as a group per LISTN. Two were child actors not even notable enough for their own articles, and the third is also a coincidentally long-lived person who was just a baby in these films as an extra and wouldn't have had speaking roles at this point even if they weren't silent! I fail to see the usefulness or encyclopedicness of this. Reywas92^Talk 14:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No reason to delete, and sadly, time will take care of this article in a few years. Bkatcher (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because time will not take care of this article. Sadly, it is quite likely that the deaths of at least two people on this list will go unnoticed, and we'll simply have an unreferenced, inaccurate list, which some day someone will have to bring back to AfD with the comment 'these people, if they're still alive, must be 150 by now...' Any list of living people must be maintainable; i.e. there must be a good chance of someone actually being aware the people are alive and curating the list; otherwise it's just a list of people who were alive at some arbitrary and ill-defined point in the past. Elemimele (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LISTN. These thespians aren't discussed as a group. At best, there are occasional articles about individuals, e.g. The Last Living Silent Star: Child Actress Baby Peggy Made the Equivalent of $14M a Movie and Lost It All. Also delete List of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood for the same reason. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rework towards the last surving silent film actors from a historical perspective (who was the last living silent film star?, for example). --Clibenfoart (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer to the question is Lassie Lou Ahern and Diana Serra Cary, the last two were were subjectively child stars. The rest of the 2015 list were for the most part just extras. Not really sure what sort of an encyclopedic article that would be just due to being centenarians, something that occurs with people of most any occupation. But that's not this list, and this !vote should be discounted in closing. Reywas92^Talk 04:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Clibenfoart's comments. Yes, the last ones will die, but the subject of who the last surviving ones are has clearly been a notable topic of significant press coverage.[32]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting article, but not relevant whatsoever to this article. You could revert the page to 2015 which includes Baby Peggy, but I would still say this is an unencyclopedic cross-categorization of child actors – performed in the 1920s – had unusual longevity. Good source for Diana Serra Cary though. Reywas92^Talk 04:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this article is whatever we make it into! I'll perhaps remake a better one if this one gets deleted, along the lines I suggested. Articles in this genre like List of last survivors of historical events intrigue me a bit.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is either very incomplete or at the wrong title. There have been a number of silent films made way more recently than the 1920s, such as Blancanieves in 2012. TompaDompa (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Utterly trivial and not defining of the subjects, nor does it define a segment of any consequence in the film industry. Geschichte (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I'd support a List of silent film actors, not a separate sub-article with just three members grouped together just because they are living. Ajf773 (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial cross-categorisation of no encyclopedic interest. No reliable source which discusses this as a notable grouping, either, so fails WP:LISTN. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. To meet WP:LISTN we need reliable sources which discuss the list as a group; as far as I can tell, there are no such sources. I will note that I disagree with the argument that because this list will eventually become obsolete it fails notability due to a lack of enduring notability; its obsolescence wouldn't be due to its notability vanishing, but because the condition for membership stopped being true. The point is academic for this discussion, given that other reasons for deletion exist, but I mention it to avoid providing precedence for the deletion of articles such as List of notable surviving veterans of World War II BilledMammal (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also support deleting that page. Both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT make it clear that a topic must have enduring significance to be notable. While "last living" lists maintain significance longer than a typical event or news item, I think they fail reasonable tests of endurance. I presume nobody would argue in favor of lists of living English Renaissance theatre actors or surviving Boer War veterans, nor would they support lists of living 3D film actors or surviving veterans of the War on Terror. These topics are only interesting for a few decades: admittedly much longer than the kind of flash-in-the-pan topics we usually think of, but they're still ephemeral and lack lasting significance. pburka (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds that notability is not temporary and this could easily be empty by the end of next year since there’s only three people in their 90s on it. Whichever one survives longest could potentially be given credit on their individual page after they die. Dronebogus (talk) 16:22, 6 September 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anurag Tagat[edit]

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

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. All the references are by the subject and none are about the subject. Notfrompedro (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – no claim to notability. Writing articles does not make a journalist notable, and as pointed out by the nom, none of the 10 sources is actually about the person. There are eight author profiles at different publications, and two seemingly-random texts written by Tagat. --bonadea contributions talk 16:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 20:19, 8 September 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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Bolding[edit]

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

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

Poorly-referenced promotional article. Non-notable person who founded non-notable organization. Hardly any information about her other than profiles such as LinkedIn, Facebook, and associated websites. She is supposedly "2013 Australian of the Year", but the on the list of Australian of the Year Award recipients, Ita Buttrose is the recipient. Must be two different awards, and Bolding's award is less-notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification - she was nominated for Young Australian of the Year (not Australian of the Year), and she didn't win. Instead, she was named Young Victorian of the Year (a lesser honour). By virtue of that win, she was automatically nominated for Young Australian of the Year. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - I don't think the award makes her notable, and making it sound like something it isn't is just dishonest. Of the three references that can remain (I trimmed the ones that were hard-links to things unrelated to her and the like) we have a couple of instances of local coverage (the most substantive from her home town) and an "also" paragraph in a publication from India (that I am not familiar with). There's something there, but not enough to get over the line. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. This article doesn't—in its current state—satisfy WP:GNG. But, per other editors, there does appear to be something there. With further development, there may be a stronger indication of notability. I think that makes a reasonable case for WP: FLEXIBILITY. I'd support retaining the article for now. In the event that the article fails to develop a better indication of notability, it'd be a strong candidate for a future AfD. -- ExParte ^talk 06:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, but we require the subject to be notable, not the article, and we require the subject to be notable before we create an article about them. If the subject isn't notable then we should not have created an article about them. If we did create an article about them when we shouldn't have, we should delete it until such time as they become notable. We should be flexible, sure, but I don't think we should reverse that process entirely. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]