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

The result was keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Fine Wine & Spirits[edit]

ABC Fine Wine & Spirits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article likely fails WP:ORG, and was created originally by an author affiliated with said company. Not enough secondary sources either. --ZLMedia 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. --ZLMedia 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --ZLMedia 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. --ZLMedia 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --ZLMedia 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Do note that even though the page was created by someone affiliated with the company, that is not inherently grounds for deletion. This editor declared his WP:COI, and per Xtools only has 18% authorship of the page. Curbon7 (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The Orlando Sentinel piece is surprisingly in-depth about the company. Mlb96 (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't realize that WP:NORG specifically requires multiple sources, so I'm striking my !vote. Mlb96 (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Decided to see if there are any in-depth sources:

• Florida Trend article about its history and doesn't seem like a press release – The Grid (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found coverage in news: WFLA, WJXT, Tampa Bay Times, The Capital and Miami Herald. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apopolips (talk • contribs) 22:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Other than the first citation about the owner dying, the rest are just "opening a new store" or "starting alcohol delivery". Which are really just press releases. Nothing of note about the company itself. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although both the Florida Trend article and the Orlando Sentinel article appear to be puff pieces, it isn't a clear and certain fact and it could be argued that the text contains enough "fact checking" and "opinion" to meet WP:ORGIND so giving the benefit of the doubt coupled with the age and size of this company, I'd say it is notable and meets WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the Florida Trend article feels a tad promotional, it is in-depth and appears to be independent (has an author listed, part of a series about 350 Florida companies). While I can't access the Orlando Sentinel article, if it is as described by Mlb96 then we have multiple reliable, independent, in-depth sources. There is also a wide range of sources already cited in the article. I feel WP:GNG has been met. NemesisAT (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A family liquor store with some money to spend on advertising. scope_creep^Talk 12:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Not one store, rather a chain of 140 according to the article. NemesisAT (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per HighKing. Passes WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 21:48, 25 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 The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rezwan Razack[edit]

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

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

Advertisement. Lack of significant coverage that are independent of the subject. Linkedin is not a reliable reference. fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge to The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors—of which subject is the co-author—or the Prestige Group—of which the subject is a member. Subject is also founder of Museum of Indian Paper Money, which has a fair amount of coverage and may be notable on its own. Notability is not inherited through these, but the topics are fairly closely related to the subject. The subject also appears to be a researcher and expert in field of Indian banknotes. I've added some references (including one from the BBC) that seem to touch upon the subject more directly; I don't know enough about them to know if they are all reliable sources and article could use a copyedit to better incorporate them. —Ost (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors. The subject lacks secondary sources to establish notability.defcon5 (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the book's page. I couldn't find any sources at this point that could help establish notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors. 4meter4 (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:50, 26 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 11:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Applied DNA Sciences[edit]

Applied DNA Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not enough significant coverage to pass WP:CORP. One of the refs here is a company press release to investors and others are just passing mentions and routine business coverage. Uhooep (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The first source does not cover the subject in-depth, the second is Guitar-Muse, which is not a reliable source, and the third is a press release, thus none of the sources cited demonstrate why it should be of inclusion. Multi7001 (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep There's a lot of routine business coverage and stock market movement articles to wade through, but I've found a few articles with proper coverage of the company.

• Inside The Two Biotech Companies Working Together On A Covid-19 Vaccine For Cats by a Forbes staff member
• The Scramble Is on to Prove Raw Material Provenance by Sourcing Journal, an industry news site
• Stony Brook-based Applied DNA Sciences Has Covid-19 Vaccines in Trial by Long Island Press

There are also some Newsday articles about this company covering its COVID-19 research in more detail, but I can't access them due to GDPR - would appreciate if another editor outside Europe could have a look at them for me to see if they count. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 12:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Since this is a company, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP which requires a reference to contain in-depth information on the company and "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". The references in the article fails NCORP as pointed out by Multi7001 above. The references posted by Pinktoebeans also don't meet NCORP as follows:

• Forbes staff member] reference describes how two companies (one of which is the topic company) are in partnership to develop a Covid-19 vaccine for cats. While there is a lot of info about the vaccine and its development and potential trials, there is no in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
• The reference in Sourcing Journal relies entirely on information provided during "a recent fireside chat" with a company executive. The article adds no "Independent Content" - all of the info/opinion/etc comes from the company executive - and fails WP:ORGIND.
• The Long Island Press reference discusses the company in the context of various Covid-19 efforts the information is provided entirely by the company CEO or other information provided by the involved companies. As above, there is no "Independent Content" and this also fails WP:ORGIND.

I am unable to locate and references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: none of these sources meet RS standard, or cover the article as a feature, Fails WP:NCORP - needs way more RS to establish notability, which clearly doesn't exist. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:13, 23 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 speedily deleted. by Bbb23 under WP:G5 (non-admin closure) Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Satlaj Indori[edit]

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

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

Notability can't be inherited. Most of his coverage is in context of his father. But, he himself is not qualifying any notability criteria. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:36, 19 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. It appears the subject passes WP:GNG while perhaps doesn't fulfill the requirements of WP:FOOTY. Keep in mind that FOOTY is a secondary notability guideline, and is only intended as a shortcut to estimate whether or not a subject is likely to pass GNG. Once it has been established that a subject does pass GNG, then the secondary notability guideline is no longer relevant. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eder Sarabia[edit]

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

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

Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played or managed in a WP:FPL. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this subject doesn't fail WP:GNG as has been significantly featured in MARCA and lots of other reputable sources that are reliable and independent. Just like the article of Rui Faria which was created because of his general notability, this article should be kept also. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ugochukwu75: Rui Faria's article have a good amount of coverage and references, plus he did manage in a WP:FPL with Al-Duhail. Two completely different situations. Aside of that, Sarabia's article doesn't even have the correct infobox. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BrazilianDude70: I can add more coverage to the article. Rui Faria's page was created in 2010 but he didn't manage a club in WP:FPL till 2019. A tag was already added to the page for improvements which I'm already doing. There are also other options like moving the article to draft space which could be done also. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Manuel Sarabia? He is mentioned there, so... Geschichte (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No FPL involvement. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Manuel Sarabia as a reasonable WP:ATD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG, despite failing NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a Google search finds a lot of material supporting GNG in the last few days, and going back 5 years. Examples one, two ProQuest 2378452790, three. BEFORE fail. Nfitz (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes GNG - none of the articles used for references were trivial mentions of the subject. Though never managed any team in the WP:FPL, he was a notable assistant manager in two top Spanish teams, Real Betis and FC Barcelona and currently manages a third tier team, FC Andorra. Binaza (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG though fails WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:34, 23 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 00:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of the oldest living Major League Baseball players[edit]

List of the oldest living Major League Baseball players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is not, in fact, a list of living baseball players. Nor is it the oldest people to ever play. It's not even the longest lived baseball players. This confusing list reports the succession of players who have held the made-up title of "oldest living former baseball player". Surprisingly, it's not original to Wikipedia: the baseball-reference.com wiki has a similar list which predates this one by a decade or more.

A single baseball statistics wiki isn't sufficient to demonstrate that this record is in any way notable, so the list fails WP:LISTN as well as WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTMIRROR. pburka (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per NOTSTATS, just copied from baseball-reference.com, without further sources explaining why this is such a notable distinction. Nate Berkenstock played one single game and coincidentally lived 28 years after that – who cares? Reywas92^Talk 23:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It's not even clear what it means by "oldest living" -- and it's easily confused with List of oldest living Major League Baseball players. This is not something that appears important, encyclopedia worthy, or notable. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 02:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. That is some seriously terrible grammar— nobody says “oldest living” to mean “longest living” just like they don’t say “building that stood the oldest” to mean “buildings that stood the longest”. Dronebogus (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The grammar is convoluted because the concept is convoluted. If someone actually needed to know who were the longest-lived ballplayers, they'd need to look for List of centenarians (Major League Baseball players). pburka (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well if it’s that incomprehensibly convoluted then it’s almost certainly not a notable concept. This is almost cartoonishly arbitrary and overly specific— like “list of fattest Mexican dogs by decade” or something like that. Dronebogus (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the appropriate title would be Oldest living Major League Baseball player record progression or Progression of oldest living Major League Baseball player or some slight variation thereon, along the lines of Men's 200 metres world record progression...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First, I disclose that I created this article two years ago, with the title "List of the oldest living Major League Baseball player" (singular), which I believe is more accurate than the current title; it was changed by somebody else after its creation, and I'll be glad to change it back. Although I don't think that the original grammar was poor, grammar can be changed. The article complies with Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Selection_criteria in that it is not making judgements, it is not original research, the criteria for inclusion are clear, etc. It does not merely duplicate the information on Baseball Reference. I also confess that I don't understand how it fails the policies cited so far, any differently than do dozens of other baseball list articles such as List of Major League Baseball career home run leaders, List of Major League Baseball career hits leaders, List of Major League Baseball career wins leaders that appear non-controversial, and hundreds of other list articles when including other sports. As somebody who is interested in geriatrics, as well as baseball statistics that are generated off the field or outside of games, I believe that there is value in this list. Thanks for reading. Ira Leviton (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three lists you refer to are very different from this list. They're not about succession, but more importantly they're all about notable records which are widely reported and followed. How many newspapers reported when Ike Kahdot (who played 4 games in 1922) broke Red Hoff's record for oldest living ballplayer in 1998? pburka (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that the issue is about how many newspapers report something, it's about whether an event happened and was recorded so it can be cited, and whether it was notable. Of course home runs and hits in baseball are much more important than the longevity of players. But player longevity has been reported on and researched in general, and I believe that it meets notability criteria for Wikipedia, so that's why I made the list. (By the way, the three lists that I mentioned could have been copied from many other sites, probably thousands. That arguably makes their listing on Wikipedia trivial. But don't worry – I'm not seriously advocating that they should be deleted.) Ira Leviton (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability is determined by significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. To show it's notable you need to provide examples of sources that address the topic directly and in detail. (The topic, in this case, being the succession of oldest living ballplayers.) pburka (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pburka:I've added citations to a number of the individual entries – as many as I had time to find within the 7 day time frame. I used a variety of sources, including books and newspaper obituaries, in an attempt to show significant coverage in reliable and independent sources as you mentioned. More than 2⁄3 of the entries now have at least one citation that is not simply from a similar list. I left in the Baseball-reference.com citations because they still provide useful information about the players, and I'll continue to add citations to the remaining players if the article survives.

• • Temporarily holding a certain unremarkable record within a certain area, with the record having nothing to do with said area, is not notable information. Dronebogus (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No different from the List of presidents of the United States by age page. Bkatcher (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many times must it be stated that “other stuff exists” is a meaningless argument? Dronebogus (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as utter trivia. (Also to preclude the crime against English grammar of possibly restoring the original page name.) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: List of centenarians (Major League Baseball players) already covers the most significant examples.4.71.249.251 (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, that's an IP address with only three edits, purely used for voting! Please discount their vote! Bkatcher (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their argument is a lot more competent than “I like this” etc. so it’s valid. The problem is new IP editors who jump on bandwagons without good arguments, which suggests they might either be be sockpuppets/meat puppets or completely ignorant of how AfD works. Also I’m pretty sure you’re being sarcastic but most editors aren’t going to get your in-joke so please don’t confuse people. Dronebogus (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not joking. How do we know this IP, which has only edited on this AFD, isn't the sockpuppet of someone who already voted here? If this is an experienced wikipedian, wouldn't they already have an account? Or DO they? Bkatcher (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well even if it is voting is based more on the strength of the arguments, not the number of votes. If most of the votes are already leaning one way with solid arguments attached another vote for the same doesn’t change much. And in any case admins are allowed to give registered users more weight anyway when closing so there’s no point in deleting/striking out the vote or whatever unless something can be proven. Dronebogus (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please remember to WP:AGF and WP:DONTBITE. pburka (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did note vote multiple times on this discussion. My vote was based on the fact that “oldest living person to happened to have been a Major League Baseball player at some point during their lives” doesn’t seem to be a noteworthy distinction discussed by sources.4.71.249.251 (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Consensus at AFD recently has overwhelmingly supported not utilizing lists of "oldest living..."; largely because such lists are constantly changing as people age and die and maintaining accuracy and verifiability is a difficult and on-going task. Many editors consider such lists not encyclopedic (because they are inherently unstable) and in contradiction to policy at WP:LISTN. I share that view which I consider now to be the standard modus operandi/precedent at AFD within the application of NLIST in these type of list discussions.4meter4 (talk) 22:10, 25 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) 22:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the House of Blues (Jethro Tull album)[edit]

Live at the House of Blues (Jethro Tull album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Bootlegs with no indication of notability - cf "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." - Wikipedia:Notability_(music) Beardo (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jethro Tull discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: this album isn't mentioned at the discography page, and as an unofficial bootleg, it should probably not be added there – see Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#What should not be included (yes, I know this isn't an official guideline, but it's still worth following). So this fails WP:NALBUM, and if it's not mentioned in any other article, a redirect seems pointless. Richard3120 (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Richard3120. Without SIGCOV, we don't include bootleg recordings on discographies.4meter4 (talk) 22:36, 25 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Jacobs (journalist)[edit]

Samuel Jacobs (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

All the sources seem to be routine name mentioning for job promotions. It's not like they are writing articles about this guy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I take issue with the over-generalization that All the sources seem to be routine name mentioning for job promotions. At least two sources seem to be completely independent of any association with Jacobs or PR releases. One is about Samuel Jacobs himself & the other is about the changing face of Time's editorial staff.

• Doris, Jameson (July 25, 2016). "Rising Stars: Sam Jacobs Helps Time Find a Younger Audience". Folio.
• Hays, Kali (April 10, 2019). "Time Magazine Taps New Crop of Editors". Women's Wear Daily.

Peaceray (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to me notable, high management of Time (magazine). 2 independent sources. Grimes2 (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me changing your voting format. The proper way to vote is to state "Keep" so the bots can pick it up correctly in the stats. Peter303x (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep significant news coverage exists and he is Deputy Director of Time, one of the most well known publications. Peter303x (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks depth necessary for inclusion. Not encyclopedic. Fails WP:BASIC in that most of the coverage is trivial industry rag type naval gazing. Jtbobwaysf Appears to have been created by a likely WP:SPA, probably a paid editor whose purpose is to create this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The creator of this article (in both English and French) has been confirmed as a sockpuppet. Kingsif (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I had a completely open mind until I read that this was created by a sockpuppet. On its own merits, I thought the page should have remained a draft for longer, as Jacobs appears to have a high position at Time & eventually might be noteable. But any actions of sockpuppets & potential unethical paid editing should be summarily deleted, reverted, or otherwise tossed on the ash heap. Peaceray (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. fr:Samuel Jacobs was deleted as Cross-wiki spam et faux-nez bloqué indéf [Cross-wiki spam and indef blocked sock puppet]. Peaceray (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:BASIC per sources provided by Grimes2. Additionally, I would consider his position at Time senior enough to pass criteria 1 of WP:JOURNALIST. In my view, the sock puppetry has unfairly prejudiced the delete voters at neutrally assessing the subject. 4meter4 (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it has multiple reliable sources, and he has a major position at Time. I don't consider the sockpuppet argument persuasive, since another editor made major edits to the article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has significant coverage from multiple sources and the article seems to be neutral in point of view. I don't see how the sockpuppetry warrants deletion here. --Coolperson177 (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Several keep !votes seem to be under the impression that the article was nominated for deletion because of sockpuppetry and argue that this alone shouldn't warrant deletion; besides the fact that any article which has only been substantially edited by a blocked sockpuppet should be deleted, the article was nominated for deletion because of concerns about sources only discussing Jacobs as a passing mention, which is insufficient for GNG. This is what should be discussed in !votes, and the above comment mention of sockpuppetry was a neutral courtesy message for awareness, especially with a prior !vote accusing the creator of being paid SPA. Kingsif (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your analysis. I think we are arguing the subject meets NJOURNALIST and GNG and that the delete votes are using sock puppetry to ignore NJOURNALIST and GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we would be remiss as Wikipedians if we ignored all the information to which we have access. Just as if you start an article for one reason & find an additional reason for the article, you do not ignore the second reason & only base the article on the first one.

That noted, I will reiterate that I have stated On its own merits, I thought the page should have remained a draft for longer. I think that Jacobs' senior position at Time is pretty thin for criteria 1 of WP:JOURNALIST. Perhaps the article can be returned to the Draft namespace until there is additional citations for notability, other than those that note position changes or are closely connected to the institutions with which Jacobs has an association. Peaceray (talk) 19:43, 27 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 speedy deleted by Jimfbleak: CSD G11Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Also salted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pulinda Lakshitha Ekanayake[edit]

Pulinda Lakshitha Ekanayake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Has been sent to draft numerous times due to COI/UPE concerns but keeps coming back as the WP:SPA editor insists on posting it again and again. I recommend not only deletion but also WP:SALT to stop this continuous cycle of recreating. No English-language coverage can be found and "පුලින්ද ලක්ෂිත ඒකනායක" only really brings up his Sinhalese Wikipedia article, which, unsurprisingly, was also written by Pulinda himself. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion and this person does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. If he ever does become notable, I'm sure someone other than Pulinda will be happy to write an article about him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: and Salt for now, fails GNG JW 1961 ^Talk 18:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt unless someone can find Sinhalese sources that show notability. Mccapra (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt, clearly fails WP: ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. 2407:7000:9D08:BE00:11D4:E07F:4206:26E4 (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Making a journalist notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia does not entail referencing the article to video clips of him doing his job, or staff directories on the website of his own employer — it entails referencing the article to journalism about him in sources that do not sign his paycheques, representing third party analysis of his significance. That's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per all of above.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and salt fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 23:15, 25 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) 16:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Shaw[edit]

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

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

BLP based on a personal interview with the subject. Does not pass WP:NPROF or WP:AUTHOR. Mccapra (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks WP:TOOSOON for WP:NAUTHOR or WP:CREATIVE, especially in a field that is not reviewed so frequently as with prose books. WP:NPROF is unlikely for an assistant professor. No other signs of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This does not meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:BASIC and fails WP:PROF because the subject appears to have been an assistant lecturer, not an adjunct professor, nearly two decades ago. While the subject has had some luck in publishing poetry in small presses, notability has not been shown. Clearly fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to pass WP:NPROF, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the only claim to notability seems to be the Tampa Review Prize but that by itself is not substantial enough. --hroest 21:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NPROF, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 23:16, 25 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 draftify to Draft:A Loud House Christmas. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Loud House Christmas[edit]

A Loud House Christmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

per WP:TOOSOON. All sources are based on the announcement of the green-light which revealed plot and cast, with plans to go into production. No other coverage has been presented, and no evidence that filming has begun. Per WP:NFF, this should not be in the mainspace. Relevant sourced content is already found at The_Loud_House#Television_film. Article could exist in Draft space in the prospect that it receives more coverage upon release. BOVINEBOY2008 14:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify No real sources...and we don't even know the runtime, which could just be regular episode length. Removed the cast section, which is a bad attempt to make the article look larger than it actually is. Nate • (chatter) 15:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second comment Not noted in the rationale, but this is a live-action film, not an animated project (confused me at first). Still removed the cast because it was a bloated section. Nate • (chatter) 17:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your deletion. It's bad idea to delete parts of articles during discassion. -GorgonaJS (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not if it copies the source word-for-word, which is plagiarism. Re-reverted, and it shouldn't be re-added in that form. Nate • (chatter) 19:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fan of The Loud House myself and have been adding/editing info regarding the upcoming live-action film there... just wanting to confirm that despite what the article/draft may currently say, filming/production has certainly begun- filming began around April/May (not sure how long it actually lasted, but... [1] [2]) and mostly recently they've been releasing trailers/behind-the-scenes videos ([3] [4]). Magitroopa (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, article creator ZionAndrew2005 removed the deletion discussion notice on the top of the article, I've just restored it. Magitroopa (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now copy/pasting straight from sources- WP:COPYVIO. Magitroopa (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, had to revert the character descriptions; the cast list is in the main characters article, and duplicative. Nate • (chatter) 02:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 01:07, 26 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) 09:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aanchal Goswami[edit]

Aanchal Goswami (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 Indian actress, fails WP:NACTOR. John B123 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Eevee01^(talk) 09:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no significant work yet; hence fails WP:NACTOR defcon5 (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No indication of meeting NACTOR or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:05, 20 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 and rename. (non-admin closure) Andyjsmith (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Astrooceanography[edit]

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

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

Neologism failing WP:NEO. No reliable sources given for this term and the only sources I can find on the web are blogs, wikis and other non-reliable sources. It’s just not a term that anyone uses other than casually. Andyjsmith (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Like Andyjsmith, I've searched for information about "Astrooceanography", and found mostly, blogs, wikis, etc, many of them clearly derived from the Wikipedia article. Evidently "Astrooceanography" is not a recognised field under that name. However, there is certainly research relating to oceans on other planets, so is it recognised as a field, but under another name, or is this article merely a synthesis by Wikipedia editors of bits of information from different places into a novel unified concept? My personal feeling is that the article contains significant content on a meaningful topic, and I would like to keep it, under whatever name. However, after the countless times I have told editors that keeping something because one personally likes it, rather than because Wikipedia policy supports keeping it is unacceptable, I can scarcely justify acting contrary to what I have preached to so many others for so long. I therefore have to say Delete unless someone can find reliable sources which treat this as a recognised scientific field in its own right, not a collection of individual examples with no source connecting them together; if anyone can find sources which do that, then it should be keep and rename to whatever name those sources use. JBW (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Planetary oceanography. After posting my message above, I had the brainwave of searching for that title, and found multiple sources. I'll come back and post links to some of them later, but at present I'm editing on my phone, and doing the necessary checking to decide which sources are suitable would be too fiddly. JBW (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don’t think it matters if it’s not a proper field, as long as people are actually ‘’doing’’ planetary oceanography then it’s a thing and we should cover it. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The term I see used is "exo-oceanography". Praemonitus (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Exo-oceanography per Praemonitus. Googling it, it seems to be the same concept, and it looks like there's academic or at the very least reliable sources using that term. casualdejekyll (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. and rename as Praemonitus suggests. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As the nominator I’m happy to close this early as Keep and Rename. But I get the impression that Planetary oceanography is in wider use than Exo-oceanography and seems to me to be a more natural term. Any thoughts? Andyjsmith (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a new sub-field so it probably hasn't converged on a particular name yet. We can always change it when one becomes more common. Praemonitus (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valid point. I'm going to rename it to Planetary oceanography because that's more self explanatory and set up a redirect page at Exo-oceanography. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:49, 25 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 12:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Djavi Alexandra[edit]

Ri Djavi Alexandra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT. Eevee01^(talk) 02:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eevee01^(talk) 02:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eevee01^(talk) 02:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eevee01^(talk) 02:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This article in a question does not fail WP:GNG in my opinion. She played a significant role in the movie Kanchana 3 which was a huge hit and she also appeared in several popular music videos. And when we google Ri Djavi Alexandra, we can see significant coverage in several notable channels. Thanks, Billyatthewheels

To qualify WP:NACTOR, she needs significant roles in multiple notable films. Eevee01^(talk) 08:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of playing multiple significant roles to meet WP:NACTOR. Also a case of WP:BLP1E (recent death) where nearly all the sources are about their death, in addition to a case of sexual harrassment. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: agree with Ab207, that this is a case of recent death WP:BLP1E and not enough significant works to establish WP:NACTOR defcon5 (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NACTRESS. As a recent death fails WP:BLP1E. However, given the sensational nature of her death, it's possible that her death may become notable later if there is sustained coverage. It is WP:TOOSOON though to determine if that is the case.4meter4 (talk) 01:27, 26 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 12:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelana Mahessa[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL previously deleted via AfD on 5 September 2021, has not met either notability guidelines since JW 1961 ^Talk 12:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 ^Talk 12:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 ^Talk 12:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 ^Talk 12:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY and certainly no where near to passing WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. DMySon (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - none of the sources are new. Is this potentially eligible for WP:G4 speedy deletion? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spiderone, It probably is, but as a non-admin I can't see the old page or didn't review/see the article earlier this month, perhaps someone who has that info could CSD it, I'd have no objections JW 1961 ^Talk 14:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note AfD template was removed from the article today, 19 September, by Jajang Surahman. I believe this to have been an error and have therefore restored it. Sorry if I am causing confusion. Elemimele (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:Fails NFOOTBALL. Lorenzo the great (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFOOTBALL.4meter4 (talk) 02:39, 26 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. Without any references, nothing verifiable could be merged. ✗plicit 12:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert The Riley (song)[edit]

Rupert The Riley (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable as an individual song. wizzito | say hello! 12:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 12:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 12:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as either a non notable song, or a hoax. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Asartea, it is real, just a demo, though. https://bowiesongs.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/rupert-the-riley/ wizzito | say hello! 12:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Wizzito:, thanks for finding that, amended -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Zero in-depth coverage, passes neither WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The song might serve as geek trivia for Bowieheads, but as an unreleased demo with no reliable notice it does not qualify for an article here. (Someone please send the article's creator a tutorial on how to capitalize words.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge useful content into David Bowie, and Delete the rest. Demos are not automatically notable, and there's no evidence to support that claim that this one is. RomanSpa (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective Merge to David Bowie. Fails WP:NSONG per Doomsdayer's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per doomsdayer520. Oppose merge as this is trivial non-encyclopedic WP:Fancruft, and not seeing any value to a redirect.4meter4 (talk) 02:41, 26 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 12:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nagarukhra[edit]

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

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

Long-running dispute concerning the notability of a place with this name and its relation to a place described at Ukrah. See several years-worth of discussion here and at Ukrah for some background. Hopefully a formal discussion will settle this dispute, at least on paper. Good luck. Lithopsian (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT. For Wikipedia's purposes, Nagarukhra is a neologism pushed by multiple editors in wiki and maybe some people in the real world. The Nagarukrah campaign has been running in Wikipedia for six years, and the only supporting references have been user-generated content. Other efforts include a walled garden of stubs (e.g. [5] and [6]) that make census-recognized villages parts of Nagarukrah. One stated rationale for deleting Ukrah in favor of Nagarukrah is to push new information into Google and Google maps.[7] This is all contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per Google maps (link), Ukrha and Nagarukhra are over 100 miles / 160km apart. Not sure why Nagarukhra was repeatedly redirected to Ukrha nor why the numerous attempts were made to hijack Ukrah.

Neither আকাশ নাথ সরকার (talk · contribs) nor Iamakashnathsarkar (talk · contribs) appear to be communicating with each other, other editors, me, nor leaving wp:ES. My last comment on আকাশ নাথ সরকার's talk page was replied to.

There is no listing of Nagarukhra on the list of towns in 2011 census of West Bengal: https://censusindia.gov.in/towns/town.htm: https://censusindia.gov.in/towns/wb_towns.pdf Adakiko (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Google Maps takes some of its information from user-generated sources, including OpenStreetMap. Multiple hoax settlements have been introduced into Wikipedia this way (e.g. Midzemuthleiy, Delaware). In this case, the Ukrah found at the link is Ukra in Paschim district (no relation). Nagarukra has replaced Ukrah in Nadia district on Google Maps. There may be a real-world campaign on the ground, but there is nothing beyond user-generated content to confirm that, never mind anything official. Editors assert that Nagarukra town that has absorbed Ukrah and adjacent villages in Nadia district. There is no reliable evidence. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite confusing. It appears the majority maps linked to by geohack show the Ukhra area as Nagarukra Adakiko (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT Per Gene93k above. Article has been deleted three times. log Given they appear unrelated, I see no reason for a redirect to Ukhra. I have not found any significant sources showing notability. Presumably governed by WP:GEOLAND. The only source on Nagarukra would appear to have been generated by the the article's primary editor: open street map history Adakiko (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment: The article's creator has updated it with content and citations. However, the verifiable content is copied from Ukrah, including the citations. The citations supporting Nagarukra appear to be self-published or the usual blacklist-worthy mirrors with user-generated content. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no mention about the place in census record, but whatever it was doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Jeet Dev^talk 11:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I speedied this page ages ago because I stumbled on it & thought it was a dupe article then found the issues described in multiple posts above. Should likely be salted as well. JamesG5 (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT per Gene93k.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT per Gene93k. আকাশ নাথ সরকার (talk) 05:17, 26 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 12:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Stafford Jones[edit]

William Stafford Jones (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:SIGCOV. Refs are passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 10:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The references are way more than passing references. Some mention him in the headline. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I'm seeing. It is a BLP and all of them in the first block should be in-depth. None of them in the block are specific about him, many of them a bare search urls. Where is the WP:SECONDARY sourcing that can notability. In fact, not one of the 12 references is specificly about him, which against policy and doesn't support WP:BLP. scope_creep^Talk 15:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The allegation is that the William Stafford Jones entry fails the general notability guideline for significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). The guideline states:

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject . . . ‘Significant coverage’ addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.”

“Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage” are presumed to be notable. (Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges)

The Jones entry clearly meets the “significant coverage” standard. The entry cites articles over a nine-year period, involving multiple political issues, where Jones is either the main topic or among the main topics of the coverage. These articles provide extensive information about Jones such that the entry relies on no original research and every factual claim in the entry is supported by referenced authorities.

(Aside: The entry contains some references where Jones is not the main topic, but these references provide authority for other background statements in the entry. That reference style is consistent with the notability guidelines. WP:SIGCOV: “These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list.”)

Significant coverage is established by (at minimum) the following references in the entry:

• Curry, Christopher (2012-09-15). "Legislator files elections complaint against Alachua County GOP chief". Gainesville Sun. The article reports about a state election complaint that was filed against Jones. Jones is featured prominently in the article’s sub-headline: “A state senator has filed an elections complaint against Stafford Jones over a political committee Jones chairs that is sending out mailers attacking Democratic legislative candidates while listing no contributions or expenditures.” Jones is the main topic of the article, mentioned or referred to in almost every paragraph of the article.

• Morgan, Watkins (2014-08-16). "Robocalls using Crist's words from 2006 defended, assailed". Gainesville Sun. The sub-headline reads: “Alachua County Republican Executive Committee Chairman Stafford Jones has drawn some recent attention this election season for a controversial robocall.” Jones is the focus of the article, and the article notes that Jones has a history of controversial campaigning tactics.

• Dixon, Matt (2015-07-16). "Depositions show Florida GOP push for favorable Senate lines". Politico. Numerous state and national outlets covered Jones’ involvement in Florida’s 2011 congressional redistricting that the Florida Supreme Court declared unconstitutional. A 2015 Politico article mentioned Jones 17 times (not including pronouns) and detailed what it described as Jones’ “starring role” in the gerrymandering process.

• Caplan, Andrew (2019-01-12). "Behind the scenes, Bainter pulls strings". Gainesville Sun. The article mentions Jones 21 times, not including numerous additional pronoun references. This longform article reports how dark money is influencing elections in Florida, and a central focus of the article is about how Jones is behind the money. A large section of the article titled, “The Money,” provides extensive background information on Jones and explains his influence in Florida politics.

• Henderson, John (2021-02-26). "Watchdog group: Nonprofits broke IRS laws, gave nearly $3 million to Republican campaigns". Gainesville Sun. The article is about how political committees headed by Jones broke IRS laws by failing to disclose millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Jones is the central figure of the story, he’s mentioned 16 times (not including pronouns), and his headshot is the only image in the article.

User:Scope_creep claims, “None of [the entry’s references] are specific [sic] about him, many of them a [sic] bare search urls. . . In fact, not one of the 12 references is specificly [sic] about him…” ScopeCreep’s assertions are clearly and demonstrably false. Participants in a deletion process should carefully review all references before voting. --Elindstr (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Elindstr.4meter4 (talk) 02:50, 26 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 12:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron M. Johnson[edit]

Aaron M. Johnson (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 muscian. Possible toosoon. scope_creep^Talk 09:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG with references like this one. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a couple of stories in the regional newspaper, stating he was one of 30, going to play at the postparty Grammies and a followup; of local interest only and hardly notable. The WSJ is a passing mention, the rest are blogs, annoucements and passing mentions. There is no other coverage for this obscure muscian. scope_creep^Talk 15:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG owing not only to reliable if regional refs like the aforementioned but also a high-profile editorial by subject. (About author: "Considered one of the most compelling voices of his generation, the reclusive young enfant terrible of jazz is a living and breathing example of the Beat ethos.")—Swmmng (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This first is a [{WP:SPS]], he wrote it. The 2nd one I can't check at the moment, but will when I get to my pc. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Enough coverage, albeit somewhat regional, for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:30, 26 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) ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 09:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Akkad[edit]

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

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

Sources 90% from unknown local websites + promotional article for this boy's with social media Hasan AB123 (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hasan AB123 (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The "unknown local websites" include Deutsche Welle, Germany's national overseas broadcaster. The references may be unfamiliar to a North American audience, but I think they add up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdulrahman Akkad, was closed as Keep on July 12, 2021. The nominator of the first AfD, Aliaboomar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), was blocked as a sockpuppet. رر(talk • contribs) 11:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• comment hello Eastmain , Can you see the unknown local sites and their Alexa rank and then judge them for reliability?

Let's analyze the sites, 1- https://mannschaft.com/ This site is ranked according to Alexa 8 million, which is a number that is not a good site ranking. Anyone can create a site and its ranking becomes like this! 2- https://philosophia-perennis.com/ same, and this site https://xsxm.de/ave-281-abdulrahman-akkad/ He has no rank, also 90% like this and sources are PR pieces anyways --Hasan AB123 (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there is plenty of mainstream German coverage. Mccapra (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - significant news coverage exists. Peter303x (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's plenty of reliable sources proving notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am fairly certain the AfD nominator is a sock of this prolific user, and he has been canvassing this anyway. Suggest speedy close as keep/non-procedural. Kingsif (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep For now. Although I'm not as sure about the referencing as others. A paring down of promotional language & Peacocking and removal of unreliable sourcing (which currently include Instagram, Facebook, and Podcast interviews) is needed at minimum and notability should also be easier to assess afterwards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:37, 23 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) 10:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy Moss-Scott[edit]

Brandy Moss-Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

BLP of a musician with no claim of notability. A search for sources suggests the subject does not pass any of the criteria for WP:SINGER. Mccapra (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Completely fails all 12 stated criteria listed at WP:SINGER as far as I can tell. ExRat (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SINGER. HouseBlaster^talk 13:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - All I found during a WP:BEFORE search was her social media and music download sites. Does not meet notability criteria for WP:GNG nor WP:MUSICBIO Netherzone (talk) 22:00, 20 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) 10:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Joudaki[edit]

Ali Joudaki (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 draftify (which is why I am down as the 'article creator') and then contested PROD. I agree with User:Sir Sputnik's rationale "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league." For example, Soccerway confirms no appearances yet. In my view, draftify was the best option and what we do for similar cases.

Please bear in mind that searching "علی جودکی" will bring back a lot of false positives and partial matches. Out of all of the articles that are about him, I can only find routine news. All articles are either brief announcements of call up to first team and passing mentions in a friendly match report. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No reason to draftify as the article isn't well-developed yet. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per my original prod rationale. He has not played in a fully professional league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not satisfy association football notability or general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:16, 21 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 Speedy Delete. The article was deleted under CSD A7 (and its creator indefinitely blocked as a sock) shortly after this nomination was opened. (non-admin closure) jp×g 04:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Von Taghogho Apochi[edit]

Von Taghogho Apochi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Recently-created, unreferenced, self-promotional stub. WP:BEFORE yields no news results for the full name, and four for first+last (with none coming close to SIGCOV). Straight Google search returns six results for the full name and a few for the first+last (again, nothing resembling SIGCOV). I don't see an assertion of notability in the article. I'm not familiar with the reliability of Nigerian outlets, though; I'll withdraw this nomination if someone makes a reasonable claim to the validity of extant sources. jp×g 08:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete  – A WP:BEFORE search does not bring up enough sources to demonstrate that WP:GNG is met. This is the only source that reports him having a significant role; therefore subject does not meet WP:ENT. Princess of Ara 10:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it’s up fir speedy deletion now anyway. Mccapra (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Was waiting for the outcome of my UAA report before changing my vote to Speedy Delete under G5 criteria. Princess of Ara 11:52, 19 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hilal Kaplan[edit]

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

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

I don't see where a columnist for a turkish newspaper is notable here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep She is a Turkish journalist and I think she is a notable. because she has a page in Arabic and Turkish Wikipedia

--Hasan AB123 (talk) 09:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERLANGS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject's nationality doesn't matter. If the references in the Turkish and Arabic wikipedias (and others available online) are about her rather than by her, then notability is established. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as she has won several national level awards for her work. Mccapra (talk) 11:38, 19 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 Masoud Zoohori as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Neshat[edit]

Radio Neshat (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 internet radio station does not meet the WP:GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nomination. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is the only round-the-clock Persian media in Australia and covered by reliable sources (for example, The Weekly Review). Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete sources are weak. Coverage is mainly about a journalist who worked for this station that was killed. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree there is only 1 (arguably) IRS source (The Weekly Review). As it stands the page fails WP:GNG. Given that one IRS source was from 2015 it seems unlikely the subject will garner more, but to be fair let's call it at least WP:TOOSOON. Cabrils (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Masoud Zoohori who's the owner of the internet station. Fails WP:GNG per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyong a source from The Weekly Review. SBKSPP (talk) 03:25, 25 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. I withdraw my nomination. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mtawali[edit]

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

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

Second citation is about schools, and the author has been indeffed. Qwerfjkltalk 06:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Qwerfjkltalk 06:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I salvaged this one. It now has an inbox with coordinates references to GeoNames. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a crap article but it is a place. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Appears to be a recognised settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GEOLAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, like it or not, it passes WP:GEOLANDJackattack1597 (talk) 11:31, 26 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. I withdraw my nomination. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 06:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandela, Mali[edit]

Mandela, Mali (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 final two citations are bogus, and the author has been indeffed. Qwerfjkltalk 06:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Qwerfjkltalk 06:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I salvaged this one. GEOnet is back up, and I confirmed the coordinates there and removed the irrelevant references. We now have a perfectly good geo-stub. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Appears to be a recognised settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GEOLAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:58, 25 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 delete arguments are far stronger in policy here. Asserting that the article has "a reasonably long list of sources" and that "some probably are" independent just will not wash. No specific sources were pointed to in the discussion that actually confirm notability despite being requested to do so. The rest of the KEEP contributors simply asserted that NCHURCH had been met, which plainly it has not unless and until the above point is addressed. SpinningSpark 13:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Common Wealth of Zion Assembly[edit]

Common Wealth of Zion Assembly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Apparently non-notable religious organization. A search turns up nothing contributing to GNG, while the cited references are either dead, suspended, classified as dangerous, self-published, or do not constitute significant coverage.

It is possible that the dead/suspended/dangerous sources did meet GNG, but I consider that unlikely. BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Are you suggesting the various in-country news coverage of allegations against the senior pastor don't count towards notability? Jclemens (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They count for the pastor (though WP:BLP1E would have to be considered), but I don't believe constitute significant coverage of the organization. If an article for the pastor exists it would make sense to redirect the organization to them, IMO. BilledMammal (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- As a church with 5 campuses, this is effectively a small denomination. There is a reasonably long list of sources, some of which may not be independent, but some probably are. The (unverified) church attendance of 20,000 even if the total from all campuses is probably approaching that of a mega-church. All in all, I think there is enough here for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Simply not notable at all. --RamotHacker (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- per Peterkingiron as subject satisfy NCHURCH and NONPROFIT. Dfertileplain (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets NCHURCH per Peterkingiron.4meter4 (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• User:4meter4, User:Dfertileplain and User:Peterkingiron; WP:NCHURCH just says that they must have met the heightened requirements of WP:NCORP, which states "[It is] notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." WP:ORGCRIT then provides an in depth definition of those words.

My own review of the citations, and my own before search, suggests to me that we do not meet this; perhaps one of you can provide WP:THREE to prove that we do? BilledMammal (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Peterkingiron's and subsequent keep votes aren't based in policy. As BilledAnimal states, NCHURCH explicitly sets the standard to meet which must either fulfill the requirements laid out in the WP:GNG or those in WP:ORG/WP:NONPROFIT. Nothing implies these churches operates at a national or international level, and the church has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. The sources that are provided are either insignificant and merely mention the church in passing, aren't independent of the subject, or aren't reliable sources. Seddon ^talk 21:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - promotional article, lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:31, 19 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 Withdrawing per Mx. Granger's sources. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Beijing Tiananmen[edit]

I Love Beijing Tiananmen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Neither this article, nor any translation of this article in other languages except Japanese, cites any sources (and none of translations are cited). The Japanese wikipedia links to a People's Daily article that has no discernible context and this report, which I am unable to access or read but may be potentially fruitful for Japanese language readers. Beyond this, there's no indication that this song is notable that I can find other than the song exists and that there exist recordings of it, so I'm unsure what to make of this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I see lots of Chinese-language sources: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. (The last two are paywalled.) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per the sources above, which cover it in depth. The Chinese is very simple, so the translation is straightforward, though you can find it easily online – it seems popular on language learning sites as it's so simple.2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:CD90:53D0:5B76:9D48 (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Mills Godwin. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Godwin[edit]

Becky Godwin (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. Absolutely no reason for this deceased minor to have a page. WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E apply. Redirect to Mills Godwin if there is no consensus to delete. KidAd • SPEAK 03:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mills Godwin per nom (coverage at that page is sufficient). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - a tragic tale, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:35, 19 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) 10:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rolando Bacci[edit]

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

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

I can't find any independent sources on this person. It doesn't appear that he meets any of the notability indicators for musicians, and if this article was new, it almost would be speedy-deletable. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Evidence against WP:MUSICBIO not found. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per Hydronium Hydroxide. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete no claim of notability and entirely promotional. Mccapra (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:59, 25 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 12:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 2010 Imperative[edit]

The 2010 Imperative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, lacks independent sources to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:59, 25 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) 10:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Vigneault[edit]

Steve Vigneault (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:MMA critera by having only 1 fight in a top tier promotion. Also fails WP:GNG as main coverage is merely routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 02:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; the only fight listed which is a top tier MMA organization is UFC, but WP:NMMA requires at least three fights.
• Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NMMA. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One top tier fight is not enough to meet WP:NMMA and I don't see the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:09, 25 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 11:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Atiya[edit]

Sami Atiya (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:SIGCOV. References are profiles and an appointment notice. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 22:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep. You are only talking about the sources in the article. Have you even checked to see what sources on this subject are available? 195.36.35.251 (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPA account. Just came in this morning. scope_creep^Talk 07:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I'm an inclusionist, and would like us to have articles for everyone, but until then we don't need a bias towards paid bios for random businessmen. – SJ + 03:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV]. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:10, 25 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 withdrawn. Withdrawing this AfD. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald H. Chilcote[edit]

Ronald H. Chilcote (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 BLP does not have any secondary reliable sources independent from the subject himself; its citations are entirely limited to a journal of which he has served as managing editor since its founding. There's a lot of information on this page that is entirely unverifiable, and I believe it would be best to delete the page in light of the lack of coverage of this individual. The page feels as if it was written by someone who knows the subject personally, and I believe that this should be deleted per WP:TNT. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As pointed out in the article, "Chilcote is the author of over 200 academic publications, including books, book chapters, and peer-reviewed journal articles, with emphasis on comparative politics, political economy, and development economics." A distinguished 86-year-old scholar who has authored over 30 books in a 60-year career, he is eminently qualified for a Wikipedia entry. In addition to the nine inline cites, there is the "University of California, Irvine Guide to the Ronald H. Chilcote papers". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nine inline cites come entirely from a journal that he edited, while the the guide is published by his employer. Neither of these are independent sources, and one's employer collecting one's papers doesn't seem to be remarkable whatsoever, especially when Chicotle himself donated them to create the "collection". — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guide is not published by his employer. He was employed by UC Riverside; the guide is published by UC Irvine, a different university. From description of the contents in the guide, it appears to be unrelated to his university work. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as unprodder. As I wrote in my unprod, "Abu-El-Haj is enough of a reliable source to save this from BLPPROD, and the named professorship appears to pass WP:PROF#C5". The nominator appears to have completely ignored this rationale and failed to even address WP:PROF-based notability, which is not based on the "secondary reliable sources independent from the subject himself" requested in the nomination. On top of which, even the most cursory search of JSTOR for book reviews of his books finds many (starting with [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], etc) so there are many many in-depth published sources about his work and an easy pass of a second notability guideline, WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Some decent citations on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Obvious Keep. He holds a named chair in a reputable university (WP:PROF#C5) and he's managing editor of a journal (WP:PROF#C8) before we even start on his output of books and papers. It is a common misunderstanding that these don't count towards a person's notability. If academic papers are widely cited, or if books sell very well and are widely read, then they do contribute (because article citations, and book sales, are an indication independent of the author, and both indicate that the author has wide influence). The article is in desperate need of proper referencing, but there is no reason to believe that the subject is not notable, and referencing can be improved. Elemimele (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the unprod rationale and the passing of WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boneyard, Arizona[edit]

Boneyard, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Search results were overwhelmed by a large aircraft boneyard which happens to be in Arizona, but a few pre-1950s sources mention similar place names. It wasn't clear whether Boneyard Canyon or Boneyard Ranch were at this location, but in any case none of them come close to meeting GNG or even verifying the existence of a populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 01:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete According to "Arizona Place Names", "The Boneyard, Apache County - In 1880, two men brought cattle from Texas to this high plateau. They froze during the winter and their bleached bones marked the mountain pass for years to come". (not sure whose bones). This is the only Boneyard I find in Apache County and its not a populated place. MB 01:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The aircraft boneyard is a mecca for aviation enthusiasts – I worked with one who would make a pilgrimmage there every year. Our article for that is 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group but nobody calls it that – its common name is the Boneyard. So, the worst case here is that we would redirect to that page to help with navigation. The cattle boneyard seems to get some coverage in works like Arizona Highways and Arizona Place Names so perhaps there's some need for disambiguation too. Deletion would help no-one. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  According to Aircraft boneyard, there are at least four in Arizona. MB 01:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This isn't the aircraft boneyard...the site of cow death is not notable at all. If your suggestion is to redirect, then why the hell are you saying to "keep"? That would help no one. Yet another junk "article" from User:Gilliam that until yesterday said it was an unincorporated community. Reywas92^Talk 15:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BASIC. Its not Davis–Monthan Air Force Base. Mztourist (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. There's no substance to the article. GenQuest ^"scribble" 05:55, 22 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. ✗plicit 12:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antler (cocktail)[edit]

Antler (cocktail) (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 drink, totally unsourced since inception in 2016. I tried searching using various combinations of the name, the sports team, the city, the name of the bar it originated in, even the ingredients. Nothing came up, and "Antler" brings up a lot of false-positives for unrelated establishments like restaurants and hotels. Estheim (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: So unofficial a cocktail for the Bucks that I can't find any sources linking the cocktail to them. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 19 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. Enough sources have been presented to show that the article is capable of being expanded well beyond its current stub. I strongly suggest doing that before considering a merge. The expanded page may well be unsuitable to merge for UNDUE concerns. SpinningSpark 14:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Granby Telephone & Telegraph[edit]

Granby Telephone & Telegraph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fairly fails to meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Should be merged with Otelco Asketbouncer (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. See this reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Having seen Eastmain's source (and he hasn't actually proffered a ground upon which to keep, valid or otherwise), I'm entirely underwhelmed. CORPDEPTH still applies, MULTSOURCES still applies, and WP:ORG and WP:GEOSCOPE certainly applies. A valedictory for the small town telephone exchange from the local paper scarcely meets notability standards, especially given the sub-stub of an article.

  Speaking of a merger, there's nothing TO merge that isn't already in the other article. Ravenswing 21:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The company is discussed in this historical book and this historical book on Granby by reputable academic publishers, and its notable for being one of the few surviving small telephone companies in the United States as stated in the first source. While not exactly independent, this United States Congress report could be used to source and expand content as well. Ultimately, there's enough here to establish SIGCOV and the company's interest to historians writing on the city of Granby is clear.4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Delete or Merge as per noms suggestion. Based on the sources found to date and my own searching, I cannot find any references that satisfy the criteria for establishing notability. The two books mentioned by 4meter4 above are self-published and therefore fail as they are not reliable sources. The reference by Eastmain (as noted by Ravenswing) fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND as most of the info is provided by a company employee, no indication of any "Independent Content". Topic therefore fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• HighKing Neither source is self published. Both books are published by Arcadia Publishing which is widely respected for its publications of reliable local histories and academic textbooks. Both sources are high quality reference works published by a respected academic publisher and constitute independent and significant coverage. 4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking again Arcadia bought a number of companies, some of which were self-publishing or self-distributing companies but Arcadia isn't. Thanks for the correction 4meter4. I don't believe the books do anything other than confirm the existence of the telephone company and I've modified my !vote to merge instead. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination is proposing merger rather than deletion but the proposed target would not be an improvement. There are plenty of sources, as noted noted above and so WP:ATD seems quite feasible and preferable, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 13:38, 15 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) 10:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of living former members of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom[edit]

List of living former members of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Oops, I'd have sworn I already nominated this. Must have missed it. Anyway, since I forgot, and since I'm lazy; per the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living former members of the United States Cabinet and every other trivial combination of "characteristic X" and "living person". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]