< September 04	September 06 >

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

InvGate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article, company does not meet WP:NCORP since sources are largely WP:ROUTINE coverage. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I thought that I have done a fair research to compile this article for Wikipedia. During my search, I found many Spanish sources which I think will be helpful here? Ysbail Faughn (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I suggest to you that you change the article so that the topic is the software, not the company. Based on the number of reviews of the software I believe it should meet the criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company fails the criteria for establishing notability (NCORP) although I believe if an article were to be created with the software as the topic it meets the notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As not meeting (NCORP). Feel free to ping me if additional non-English sources are added to the article. Putu Suresha Roldán (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Kovačević (tennis)[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Has had no major success at the professional or collegiate level in tennis. Sources don't seem to indicate any notability, and he hasn't appeared in any major ATP level tournaments. Adamtt9 (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Was ranked as high as No. 6 in college (according to 2020-2021 Illinois men's tennis roster). Is mentioned in two credible ATP articles relating to 2021 US Open men's singles qualifying in which Holger Rune and Marco Trungelliti are the main subjects (articles cited on proposed page for deletion). Has been runner-up in one ITF event each in singles and doubles against/with players who have their own wikipedia page. Do not recommend for deletion. Nagorblliw (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articles you mention only mention Kovacevic passively as the main subjects of the article, as you noted, are other players. I don't think these sources help to assert notability to Kovacevic himself. Adamtt9 (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would the second article involving Trungelliti not establish some form of notability for Kovačević at all? Albeit it's in Spanish, for approximately half of the article it goes into detail about the match between Trungelliti and Kovačević and key/emotional moments during said match. I'd say that establishes a good amount of notability in terms of being referenced in half of the article. Kovačević is also referenced (with article citations) on the wikipedia pages of Benjamin Bonzi and Marco Trungelliti, which establishes some notability. Do not recommend for deletion. Nagorblliw (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it gave more than a brief mention of Kovacevic and described his game play in more detail, that article would be considered routine match coverage not eligible for notability considerations; it does not go into any depth on the subject, which is what is required by NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All provided sources are trivial mentions or not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giulia Lupetti[edit]

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

The article is very promotional and curricular. In fact, she's basically unknown even to the Italian audience: as model she lacks notability and as actress she has never got a major (main actress / supporting actress ) role. The article was create by Enrico Pinocci (here his biography), a screenwriter who, not surprisingly, has no else edits than the ones with which he wrote the article. Blackcat 17:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to have numerous hits in GNews, all in Italian, so I can't establish how useful they are. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Oaktree b:, mostrly free press or local newspapers. To give you an example, no one amongst the big national italian newspapers (la Repubblica except for its local edition of Bari, Corriere della Sera, La Stampa, il Tempo, etc) ever mentioned her. -- Blackcat 14:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Blackcat. I don't speak Italian so I'm going by Google translate but none of the RS hits appear to be meaningful or in-depth enough to pass WP:GNG. The tone and resume-like style of the article are such that even if notability standards were met, the article would likely have to be completely redone under WP:TNT. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GPL93: Yes. As I said above indeed, this model is basically unknown even to the Italian audience; it's not the first time that I catch on other projects articles about Italian want-to-be celebrities which are often used as "bridgehead" or "trojan" to introduce the article in the chapter in Italian (on the ground that's supposedly more difficult to sustain its deletion if it's already present elsewhere in Wikipedia), -- Blackcat 17:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in multiple I independent references. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Putu Suresha Roldán (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'll move it as well. Geschichte (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sankt Hans Hill[edit]

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

It exists, but doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've edited the article and added a number of sources. Significant area in the city, and passes WP:GNG. /Julle (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not very fond of the current article name, though. It's not a hill, it's an area. The article uses Sankt Hans backar, the Swedish name, whereas we have named it Sankt Hans Hill. Not only is this confusing, it's also mistranslation – backar means hills, in the plural. /Julle (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As an artificial structure, it fails WP:GEOLAND, but it passes WP:GNG through WP:HEY. BilledMammal (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG through WP:HEY indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG through WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:40, 7 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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bambi Northwood-Blyth[edit]

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

I can't see significant coverage and that should not just passing mentions about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. And Press Releases/Paid releases are not allowed such as PRNewswire. Fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep This model has been on the covers of prestigious magazines such as Vogue Japan, Elle Australia etc and is a well known face. I do not agree with the suggestion to delete. Google her name and see the number of articles about her to prove her note-worthy existence and body of work. She is a model of notability and was a host of Channel V which is broadcast around Australia. Cites provided are from credible publications that include interviews with her - something these publications wouldn't seek or publish as a feature if she wasn't noteable. These reputable sources include W Magazine, Grazia Magazine, Wonderland, Marie Claire, Sydney Morning Herald etc.Grapepinky (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable model. Fails WP:GNG.JeepersClub (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's a huge volume of vapid nonsense out there covering everything from her personal relationships to individual (yes, individual) outfits on any given day. It's questionable whether the totality of that volume meets our significant coverage requirements. But we also have articles like this, this, and this (and various things of similar quality). Some of that is equally vapid but it rises (as far as I'm concerned) to the level of significant coverage, and those are certainly reliable sources. So that's enough for me. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stalwart111. Lots of reliable RS. Passes GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Immoral Study[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. Last AfD had minimal participation. This has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject flunks WP:N.TH1980 (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources in Japanese or English found via WP:VG/SE. Zero reviews on Metacritic. IceWelder [✉] 16:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in RSs, just on amateur/fan sites and in databases.--Alexandra^IDV 07:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Hadel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. No major reliable sources from Google. Most references do not cover this subject in depth: more pertinent to Smiling Friends than for a stand-alone article. ‒overthrows 21:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ‒overthrows 21:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ‒overthrows 21:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ‒overthrows 21:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep? Did you also make sure to check sources under his YouTube alias "psychicpebbles"? The subject was originally both a Newgrounds and YouTube animator, and under his name, I saw that his videos received coverage in The Daily Dot and Kotaku; the former talking about his popular KONY 2012 video and the latter about his animated video on the Arrow in the knee meme. That should just barely cross the threshold for notability under WP:WEB, along with his contributions to Smiling Friends. Also, I'm not entirely sure of the reliability of Legit.ng, but at a glance I saw it was used in over 500 articles, one of which was a Good Article. If it's a reliable outlet, then I would use this source. PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I would also be for keeping. He has more than 1 million subscribers, not mentioning his contributions to Smiling Friends. The video Arrow in the knee, which he animated, has been viewed over 20 million times... I would say, in his field he is well known. Tec Tom (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Notability is there, though more borderline in this case, and more sources exist as pointed out above. Sro23 (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darden Rice[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor and unelected candidate for mayor of the city, not adequately sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, neither city councillors nor non-winning mayoral candidates are considered to be automatically notable just because they exist -- the notability test for city councillors requires evidence that they could be considered significantly more notable than the norm for city councillors (e.g. by serving in an internationally prominent global city or by having nationalizing coverage far beyond just the local coverage that every city councillor everywhere can always show), and non-winning mayoral candidates are notable only if they already have preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy itself.
But the sourcing here isn't demonstrating a credible reason to treat Darden Rice as markedly more notable than most other city councillors: it consists mainly of primary sources and blogs that are not support for notability at all, with relatively few citations to real media and no evidence whatsoever of anything more than run of the mill local coverage. And even though this is written as though the mayoral race is still ongoing, the election was held in August and she didn't win it. Nothing here is grounds for a Wikipedia article per se, in the absence of any evidence as to why she should be seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other city councillors. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Page reads like a campaign ad too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject does not pass WP:NPOL and is not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NPOL. Putu Suresha Roldán (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Menu (upcoming film)[edit]

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

per WP:NFF, the source used to indicate that filming has begun predates the film start date by a month! We need a source that actually indicates that filming has started, not that the scheduled start date has passed. This should be in the draft space until coverage is provided AND production has been shown to be notable. The passage of a filming start date does not magically make a film notable BOVINEBOY2008 23:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: when the source was first published is fundamentally irrelevant. The source is of a casting call issued by the production specifying when people working as actors in the film are needed to work. The production has been made notable through the coverage of the castings. On another note I find it highly inappropriate that deletion discussions are formed for these issues when an RFC over whether it should be draftified or not should be issued. You risk the content as a whole being deleted when it doesn’t need to be. At all. Rusted AutoParts 23:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NFF " Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun." So the publishing date of the source does matter according to our guidelines. Also, I find it inappropriate bypassing the AfC process by just moving the article to the mainspace without submitting it for review. Especially when the creator of the draft is the one attempting to publish it. I can certainly consider using RfC in the future, this does seem like another approach. BOVINEBOY2008 09:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don’t see the need for an AFC process when the article meets the criteria to satisfy NFF. The filming start was stated in a production authorized casting call and a dive onto social media shows me that extras selected for that casting call had begun filming. But they aren’t the cites we can use. We can use that casting call, because when it was published just does not matter as it's direct info from the production itself. Rusted AutoParts 17:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – several sources have stated that filming would begin by September 6 (see Production List). A recent report from Los Angeles Times said the lead actress would work on The Menu before moving onto Furiosa (the latter began filming in August). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, my concern is that none of these have actually stated that production has begun. They all predate September 6. BOVINEBOY2008 09:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Georgia Department of Economic Development lists the film as currently in production. APD (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFF. The Film Creator (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFF. 4meter4 (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Early keep per consensus on WP:GNG and the nominator's withdrawal. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hagerty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Coverage is mainly based on local sources. Evanston, Illinois is a city of roughly 80,000 people, and its local newspapers do not provide the level of "significant" coverage required by WP:POLITICIAN. Edge3 (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as a GNG pass (decent, well-sourced article on the person). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I've considered Elli's comment above, and I concede that GNG may provide sufficient evidence of notability for this person. Edge3 (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Francis[edit]

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

Biography of a writer, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. The notability claim being made here is that he existed, with no evidence being shown of the distinctions (awards, significant critical attention, etc.) needed to establish his significance -- and three of the four footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability at all (a piece of his own bylined writing, profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated non-media organizations, etc.) -- and while the one remaining source, an academic journal article by Warren Cariou, is genuinely solid, it takes a lot more than just one acceptable source to clear the bar. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably more than just one reliable and independent source. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I did a quick search on this poet and there is a ton of information proving his notability, including he and his poetry being discussed in such reliable sources as The Oxford Handbook of Indigenous American Literature and The Oxford Handbook of Canadian Literature. I have added some of this information along with additional citations to the article. --SouthernNights (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Author and his work are covered in highly regarded published academic reference works. Clearly passes both WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator.. Star Mississippi 23:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tilhar railway station[edit]

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

~~Lacks independent sources establishing that this is a notable railway station. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, due to WP:HEY. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Times of India report indicates that this is a regular railway station and we usually have articles about those. Also, I find historical sourcess indicating that there was a Tilhar station on the Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway back in the 19th century. So, there seems to be plenty of scope for expansion and improvements and so our policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 08:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson. The article is in sore need of cleanup, but it meets the notability guidelines for railroad stations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All railway stations are considered to be notable per longstanding consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems too early to delete it now considering it's 2-3 days old, there could be more room for expansion. While searching up might not get a lot of decent results in the first few pages, the article does include strong sources such as The Times of India and from Google Books. Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Improved significantly since nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ranvir Singh Lali[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The author of the article also authored the society article and has been busy creating articles for every president. Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has reliable references from Stuff and RNZ, New Zealand's mainstream media. The Supreme Sikh Society of New Zealand has had regular coverage in the NZ media lately. This is only a stub, I recommend the article should not be deleted, it should be given the opportunity to be expanded. This is the latest documentary about the Society and its service: www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/sunday/clips/time-of-need

NZMann (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bbb23 fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Supreme Sikh Society of New Zealand as not notible on his own NealeWellington (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 04:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaswinder Singh Nagra[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The author of the article also authored the society and has been busy creating articles for every president. Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Society's official website confirms Jaswinder Singh Nagra is the current president: www.supremesikhsociety.co.nz/executive-committee. The Supreme Sikh Society of New Zealand has had regular coverage in the NZ media lately. This is only a stub, I recommend the article should not be deleted, it should be given the opportunity to be expanded. This is the latest documentary about the Society and its service: www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/sunday/clips/time-of-need

NZMann (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bbb23 fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Supreme Sikh Society of New Zealand as not notible on his own NealeWellington (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 04:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rex-Theater (Wuppertal)[edit]

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

Non notable theater does not pass WP:NBUILDING. Cannot find any WP:RS covering this theater. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 21:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No refs at all, after 10 years as a stub. It's not even a stub, just a photo, really, so nothing useful would be lost by deleting it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage is available through the German language article. Weber1982 (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The building is also a protected historical building (Denkmal) under German law § 2 (1) DSchG. Weber1982 (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Historically protected structure. The German wikipedia article is 16 years old.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a designated historic monument. Sources have been added. Mccapra (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Article has been properly sourced. Passes GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Gaskell[edit]

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

I think this businessman fails WP:NBIO, but I'm not sure what the precedent is on similar articles. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 21:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 21:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 21:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In just scrolling through the first 5 or 6 pages in a google books search there looks there may be enough RS to pass GNG if we could actually access all of the sources (many are in snippet view). However, this article is highly promotional and reads a lot like a CV. As such, I wouldn't be opposed to just delete per WP:TNT.4meter4 (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There might be an article here, but it would require WP:TNT to find it. Putu Suresha Roldán (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A listing at List of Coptic saints and the creation of (individual) redirects remains possible. Sandstein 10:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham, Ethnus, Acrates, James, and John[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Has one source, from 1924, which is a thousand-page dictionary of saints and has this to say about these five, in its entirety: "Mm., venerated in Ethiopia. F. 3 Aug. Cal. Copt". Google search doesn't turn up anything. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:SIGCOV unless a source can be found which as a minimum explains why they were venerated. Message me is WP:HEY is attained. Geschichte (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They were venerated as martyrs - that's what "Mm." means above. St Anselm (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martyrs in what situation? Geschichte (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recognised as saints by a major church. Generally we see such people as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Necrothesp: Do you have a source for that? Per Geschichte, the article fails WP:GNG. It also fails WP:BASIC.
Keep. I am struggling to find anything, but I think we can presume that there will be offline sources in Amharic. St Anselm (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HEY is welcome, but there's no automatic notability here. Where is the guideline or precedent that states this in the absence of sources beyond a passing mention grouping these five unknowns together? Reywas92^Talk 03:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Coptic saints. That article would be better if is specified the saints day for each saint. There is no content in this article except a series of names and that they were martyrs, who are all venerated on one day. If detail can be provided, it could be kept, but unless they were martyred together, they would need separate articles. Saints are commonly notable, but we need some biographic content. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect doesn't make sense. First, these saints don't appear on the suggested target page. Second, if redirects were created, they should appear under the names of the individual saints, not grouped like this. Dan Bloch (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The one source we have is very brief and not significant coverage. No other sources can be found.4meter4 (talk) 02:47, 13 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 List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. ✗plicit 00:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Falcon Heavy launches[edit]

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

Formerly redirected to List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. Not only does List of Falcon Heavy launches duplicate part of List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, the latter article covers the subject in more depth. John B123 (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches is too long, at 17,000 words, but splitting splitting off Falcon Heavy will not remove enough content to bring it down to size. As such, we should restore the redirect and work out a better split point. BilledMammal (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. As a counter-proposal, I think that splitting into arbitrary time periods (e.g. 2010–16, one article each from 2017–21, and future years) will be a more feasible option. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have switched on the Blackpool Illuminations[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced indiscriminate collection of information. Small amounts of relevant, notable information can be merged into the main article if needed, but I don’t think we need a list of everyone who has ever turned on these lights. firefly ( t · c ) 20:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 20:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination talks of merger but that's not done by deletion – see WP:MAD for details. See the similar List of Oxford Street Christmas lights celebrities for the southern equivalent. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources have discussed this list of people as a group. See Everything You Didn't Need to Know About the UK, New Statesman, Lost Blackpool. pburka (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. Not sure how this is "indiscriminate" when it has a clearly defined inclusion criteria. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Change into a column-ated list and merge to Blackpool Illuminations. Would fit perfectly there. Geschichte (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not entirely unsourced and and an additional source is the BBC's coverage over the decades of the switch-on. Rillington (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purely for the record, it was entirely unsourced when nominated (this is how it looked then), but has been significantly improved since then with sources being found that I seemingly either missed or didn't search in the right places for. Given there has been a non-keep !vote, I cannot withdraw the nomination formally. However, I feel that given the improvements made and that almost certainly will continue to be made, the article probably deserves to be kept - many thanks to those who made such improvements. firefly ( t · c ) 13:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Ray Rogers[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy any of the four points on WP:NARTIST or the points on WP:BASIC. – DarkGlow • 19:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found no RS in search. Curiocurio (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not found any coverage in independent, reliable sources, nor any indication that the subject could meet the criteria in WP:NARTIST. Vexations (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After a search online, I was unable to find anything on this artist. They do not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST Netherzone (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although Rogers' work does seem to sell (a gsearch does bring up quite a few commercial sale/gallery sites selling his works), have been unable to find anything that contributes to wikinotableness ie. nothing that meets WP:NARTIST (where are the wikinotable galleries holding his works?) or indeed WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:51, 11 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Art School of Corfu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Art School of Corfu

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

Bokatsiampis founded a private school in 1895. Giallinis (not Yiallinis) founded a private school in 1902. There is no indication the two collaborated on anything. The second sentence makes no sense. No sources or references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WQUlrich (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:SIGCOV, I cannot find any WP:RS on the school. I would go so far as to say it could be a hoax. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 20:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nominator and per above comment. I also can't seem to find anything useful.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find coverage (besides listings) from sources in Greek. Probably an indirect promotional article of the present day private art school of the same name. Furthermore, according to a (well sourced) Greek language WP article, the oldest institution of their kind in Corfu was the "Διδασκαλείο των Ωραίων Τεχνών", reformed in the mid 1810s as "Σχολή Καλών Τεχνών" of Pavlos Porselantis. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 06:32, 7 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 00:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Celebrity Juice games[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:LISTN as the games are not covered significantly by WP:RS. – DarkGlow • 18:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 18:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 18:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 18:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 stories : The Book By Umesh Kaushik[edit]

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

Previously deleted under the name 2 Stories The book by Umesh kaushik. I can't find any evidence that this meets WP:NBOOK; no reviews in major publications, no significant awards, not cited as influential in any way. No obvious WP:ATD available either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:NBOOK.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject does not meet WP:BOOKCRIT. --Sreeram Dilak 01:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also Raftaar kaushik, created by same editor, oddly titled bio of Umesh Kaushik. 2A01:4C8:64:C8BC:880E:ED5B:6406:DB59 (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NBOOK, published by a self-publishing company. Isabelle ^🔔 15:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Hutchinson[edit]

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

Slightly promotional BLP on a footballer that does not meet the WP:NFOOTBALL guideline. The creator barely edited elsewhere so this is a possible autobiography/COI situation too. Not one of the cited sources is more than a trivial mention. The best thing that I can find is this long quote in a local paper called The Impartial Reporter; there is little to no analysis of his quote in this piece so it does not constitute significant coverage, in my view. Secondly, WP:GNG requires multiple sources to establish notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 00:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gapochka[edit]

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

They exist, but I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2010-01 move to → Hapochka

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gameshow (magazine)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it is notable from Google, this article, or the Turkish one. I can't see a suitable ATD. Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete. The name obviously makes finding sources difficult, but a preliminary WP:BEFORE turned up no reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. IceWelder [✉] 17:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IceWelder. If any reliable sources (presumably other Turkish magazines from the 1990s?) are found, please ping me.--Alexandra^IDV 07:26, 9 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Bedford municipal election[edit]

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

Single-sourced article about a smalltown municipal council election, with no real indication of why it would be an encyclopedically noteworthy event. To be fair, at the time this was created in 2010 it was commonly accepted that any municipal election anywhere was always "inherently" notable enough for a Wikipedia article -- but under current standards, that's been considerably tightened up, and we now generally only care about city council elections in major cities that can be substantively well-sourced as significant events. So this was a good faith creation at the time, but there's no strong evidence here that it would still pass the ten year test in 2021. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – since there's no sign that this minor election (with fewer than 1000 votes cast) drew any sort of long-term or geographically broad coverage, it fails WP:NEVENT. I'm not seeing any ATDs either: a redirect to 2003 Quebec municipal elections might be an option, but that article is likely just as non-notable as this one. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dayantha Porambe[edit]

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

Subject is a non-significant local politician and as such fails WP:NPOL. Nothing to suggest that they meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO (no inherent notability in receiving MBE). Obi2canibe (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Obi2canibe (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better. An MBE would be enough for notability if the article actually contained some properly sourced substance about the things the subject did to earn it, but it is not an automatic notability freebie just because you can technically single-source the honour itself to a listicle. And the Medway unitary authority is a local political office under NPOL #2, not an inherently notable political office under NPOL #1, so just saying that he served on the council is not an automatic notability freebie either. If the article actually said anything significant, I could be persuaded to swing toward keep — but just single-sourcing that he holds the lowest level of a national honour, without actually saying anything else noteworthy at all, is not enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did check whether the MBE is notable but, although there's no specific policy on this matter, based on discussions at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), only a CBE or above would meet WP:ANYBIO #1.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOL Edge3 (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Dan arndt (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is not yet enough significant coverage to write an article on this person. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Péter Fülöp (ceramist)[edit]

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

Indications of notability, but I couldn't verify it. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I spent some time today looking for (and adding) sources to help support the text. While these sources seem to support some of the text, I'm not sure that many/all support notability (most news sources are passing mentions, where the subject and the subject's work are mentioned in a discussion about a broader/other primary topic). I'll try and take another look later. But I've not yet come down on one "side" (keep/delete) as yet. (That the article seems to have been created/expanded largely by SPA and likely COI editors doesn't, however, "help".) Guliolopez (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated comment. I've found and added yet further sources. In all honesty, and perhaps because I'm just not "with it" in terms of the art scene, I'm not sure I can make either a "keep" or "delete" recommendation. In terms of:

WP:GNG, while the subject and his work has been covered in several news sources (Irish Times, Independent News & Media, etc), it's not exactly an avalanche of coverage. In terms of coverage in art sources (Crafts Council of Ireland, Irish Arts Review, Ceramic Review Magazine) I do not know whether the coverage afforded this artist is more than (or less than) what might be afforded any other artist. Such "art world" coverage exists. Whether it is "significant coverage", I couldn't say.
WP:NARTIST, while the subject and his work have been a substantial part of several exhibitions and represented within the permanent collections of several museums, whether they are the "significant exhibitions" or "notable galleries" expected by NARTIST, I couldn't say.

Anyway. I'm on the fence. And not sure what would trigger me to get off it. I'm not sure this is cut/dried either way.... Guliolopez (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This [1] is notable. Note his work is held in a national gallery; that alone is significant for any artist and notable. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @Littleolive oil: That reference is a profile written by Peter Fulop himself. It is not a valid source per well established Wikipedia policy? It covered by WP:SPS. It is self-published source, so its non-RS. Looking at the sources above:

Independent News & Media A small paragraph. Not in-depth.
Crafts Council of Ireland Portfolio with his name and address. It is a profile written by him.
Irish Arts Review Can't see anything.
Ceramic Review Magazine Author : Peter Fulop. Another SPS source. Changed from Comment to Delete . scope_creep^Talk 14:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I realize that it’s not a ref. I was pointing to a significant list of achievements pertaining to the artist. From there each resume point would have to be verified. Wikipedia is poorly designed to judge notability of artists. Often major awards such as a Guggenheim would only be found if the artist listed the award in a CV or resume. I am on a phone with very little time or ability to do this research and my internet connection is sporadic and iffy at best. This artist’s web site indicates significance and so notability but again these are not references nor is this Wikipedia compliant as applies to other topics. I can’t do this research right now, but until we can design Wikipedia to deal with artists I urge not to delete. Littleolive oil

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do the sources provided provide substantial, intellectually independent, and reliable coverage of the subject?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 14:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment @Littleolive oil: Remember to sign your comments with the four tildes, so we know who you are. When some article is a WP:SPS, you can't just point to it, and say we can't used that wee bit and that is ok. It can't be done that. All in the information in the article is dud. None of it can be used in any context. There is no half-way house, where you can pick and choose to use. He wrote it, so it is completly unreliable for out viewing and fails WP:NPOV and WP:COI and WP:V. scope_creep^Talk 10:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that's a somewhat uncharitable read of Littleoliveoil's comment; I read their point as being that they likely meet WP:NARTISTS#4, as the biosketch suggests that the subject's work has "been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". If that information could be verified in other sources (such as database listings of gallery holdings), then the article should be kept. Of course, absent identifying specific notable galleries and identifying sources to verify inclusion, a keep vote is premature. Suriname0 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From the url link provided above by Littleolive oil it looks likely that Fülöp meets criteria 4 of WP:ARTIST if we can verify that his work is indeed part of the collections at these major institutions. I am going to ping Possibly who is an expert at navigating museum archives to locate RS to prove this kind of thing through sources independent of the subject. I would suggest the AFD not be closed until Possibly gets back to us.4meter4 (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is basically nothing out there in RS about this artist. Worse, some claims do not check out. I checked two Irish museum collections that are searchable and claimed to include his work; neither verified the claim. An image search is a good barometer. Péter Fülöp + Ceramic art provides very few images, none of which link back to any kind of RS coverage. The sources in the article are low-quality primary sources, or minor mentions. In short, there is nothing significant available to establish notability, and we must therefore delete. (I was pinged here by 4meter4 to give an assessment, which I have done neutrally.) --- Possibly ☎ 16:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With no independent RS of significance fails WP:NARTIST and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 22:49, 13 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) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven R. Gilmore[edit]

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

Sounds like an interesting career, but doesn't have the significance or coverage to meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few citations of notability have been updated. Amber388 (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Amber388: the citations you added weren't properly formatted. I fixed them and added some more. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as new sources have been added by Amber388 and I also helped improve the page. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 14:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to keep but I do understand that from a purely 'legal' point of view, this artist, like almost every artist who hasn't obligingly died and got themselves at least an obituary, is bound not to meet current guidelines for artists' notability. In this case, the references include two books, so unless someone's got them to hand, and can show that they don't contain substantial material about Gilmore, that's two ticks for notability. Two more are interviews, and while we look dubiously at interviews because they're primary (the interviewee might have lied...), they are a sign that someone's genuinely interested in the interviewee (notability). But in the end, I think WP would be a poorer place with no mention of Gilmore. Elemimele (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merge discussions can continue outside AfD. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Breeze Song Gao[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a fairly small shopping mall, sourced largely to promotional materials and others lacking depth and/or independence. Mccapra (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the previous AfD discussion last month, I suggested merging with Breeze Center to create a single article about the chain. That's what zhwiki does. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all participants from the previous AfD discussion, which was closed as "no consensus": @DGG, Heeheemalu, Cunard, El cid, el campeador, NemesisAT, and Jumpytoo: —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are the sources Heeheemalu (talk · contribs) included in the article:
1. "(Chinese)微風松高開幕估首日1500萬元". Taiwan News.
2. "(Chinese)微風松高開幕　出動86名模特兒". Apple Daily News.
3. "(Chinese)微風松高進駐信義區　吸客漩渦打造共榮圈". www.cardu.com.tw.
4. "(Chinese)藏壽司微風松高店11月26號開幕". www.tw-tw.com.tw.
These sources provide significant coverage of the shopping mail's origins and its tenants and amenities. In addition, this article from the Vogue and this article from Hong Kong Economic Times Holdings's U Lifestyle discuss the mall. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Breeze Song Gao to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don’t accept that those sources do in fact provide independent and in depth coverage. Taiwan News, Apple Daily News and tw-tw are launch pr for the mall regurgitated as churnalism. The best source here seems to be the cardu.com piece which provides some depth and critical comparison, though what its standing is as a reliable source, I don’t know. I mean what we learn from these sources is mainly that 86 models danced around the the new store for an hour and there’s a special promotion on Kumquat Pickled Raw Salmon to mark the opening. You’d get this kind of nonsense for the opening of every new garden centre. It doesn’t show notability. Mccapra (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Breeze Center is about a shopping center in Songshan District, Taipei, Taiwan, while Breeze Song Gao is about a shopping mall in Xinyi District, Taipei, Taiwan. They likely are part of the same chain. I don't think Breeze Song Gao can be merged to Breeze Center without there being undue weight issues. I would be fine with a merge to a single article covering all branches of the chain but as a chain article does not currently exist, I support retention over deletion since the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per Cunard. VocalIndia (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merger of this and related articles into a single one about a chain of malls has been proposed; relisting to allow discussion of this option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 14:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Died for This!?[edit]

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

Non-notable album. No substantive coverage in reliable sources, never charted, no certifications, no awards, never in the rotation of a national network. Its only claim seems to be that notable artist Eminem is featured on the recording, but notability isn't inherited. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NALBUMS. Yappy2bhere (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The album has received some coverage since the day it was fresh from the oven. I found some reliable sources which talk about the album: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read your "reliable sources" before pasting the URLs here?

[5] is promo by the label ("'Southpawers' was created ... to support Shady Records’ artists" [10]),

[7] is merely a duplicate of the promo [5] via aggregator Yahoo News,

[1] is a plagiarization of the promo [5] (cf. "Clocking in at seventeen tracks" etc.) attached to a synopsis of another publication's article on the artist which says nothing about the album,

[2] is a capsule summary of someone else's article on the artist and a testimonial from the label's (co-)president about the artist sandwiched between a one-sentence release announcement and a tracklist.

The three secondary sources make incidental mention of the album itself, focusing instead on Eminem, the many featured artists, and the artist himself. (Grip, that is--he's on the album too.)

[6] says "Grip dropped his Shady Records debut album I Died For This!?, highlighted with" Eminem's song.

[4] similarly highlights Eminem ("debut on Eminem’s label", "Slim Shady himself took notice", "Eminem felt so strongly about GRIP’s future that he [contributed what is] undoubtedly the record’s biggest single.") and the boys in the chorus. The album itself is mentioned in passing ("GRIP has just released I Died for This!? ... [his] third studio album".

[3] further marginalizes the album itself by replacing the paragraph describing Eminem's participation with Eminem's lyrics. Note that [3] and [4] are nearly identical except for a different "Eminem was here" paragraph inserted between the first two paragraphs of the label's promo [5].

So, only three of these are secondary sources and two of those paraphrase the label's promo article. All three mention the album in passing and instead focus on Eminem, the performers Eminem recruited for the recording, and the Eminem's perspicuity in signing... well, whoever it was that Eminem just signed. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; just added a new review from Pitchfork, plus a release day write-up from BPM. Two reviews isn't much but it's a good start. QuietHere (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Astig and QuietHere. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG with the sources provided by Astig and QuiteHere. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM with presented sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michaela Merten[edit]

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

It turned out that the creator of the draft and the user who moved the draft to the main space is the same person (an both accounts have been blocked by now). The article is most certainly created for payment. The sources are not that strong, and, since it avoided scrutiny, we need to discuss whether the person is notable. Ymblanter (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I rather distrust people like her, so this hurts: she does seem to make quite a splash in the media. Events involving her and her husband (she gets prime mention) can be found here in the Badische Zeitung [11], here in the Augsberger Allgemeine Zeitung [12] (behind a pay-wall so I didn't check it beyond the first few lines), and here in that paradigm of reliability, Bild [13]. Bild may not be reliable, but it shows that the public know who she is, and are interested in her. The article in its current form is rather an advert for her philosophy and activities, but she might be notable. Elemimele (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no info on her except her English WP article, German WP article, and her Facebook and LinkedIn pages. Definitely no independent sources. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 17:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Try searching in German sources; she is a German author and actress. In addition to the three newspaper articles I gave above, each of which talks prominently about her (Bild is roughly equivalent to the Daily Mail - it has an enormous circulation and influence, and its finger firmly on the pulse of public interest, despite its unreliability), Lisa Hellmanzik of the Cellezche Zeitung writes about her here [14], while as an actress she is credited to notable roles by the Berliner Zeitung here [15], and the Stuttgarter Zeitung shows her collecting a prize on behalf of another thing she appeared in here [16]. The Sueddeutscherzeitung has a big chunk on her here [17], Nachrichten.at has an article here [18]. I'm sorry these aren't in English. Google-translate might help. Many of them are major German newspapers, and the links weren't hard to find. Google really helps. Elemimele (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unambiguous advertising or promotion. Lacks citations for major claims, cited sources do not support claim. Indisputable UPE, but sloppily and cheaply done. Vexations (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a suggestion on this, but don't know if it's acceptable? @Vexations:, @JayPlaysStuff:, @Ymblanter:, would it be appropriate for me to delete the entire current content of the article apart from the photo, and replace it with a stub-like statement that she is a German actress and author, referenced from some of the newspaper sources that I've provided above? The reason I suggest this is that I believe she probably is notable (based on the quantity of newspaper references available), but I agree that the current article is a TNT case, inappropriately referenced and blatantly promotional. Her notability is a totally separate to the current atrocious state of the article. I didn't think it appropriate to reduce the current article to a properly-referenced stub while the AfD is in progress, unless there is consensus to do so. Elemimele (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I would say please do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Elemimele, If there is a way to improve the article, then please do so. I'm not sure that guest appearances in a number of Krimis really amount to a notable achievement as an actor.Her main claim to notability appears to be a leading role in de:Katrin ist die Beste. That German article is very poorly sourced, and I'm not sure if there is better coverage. I'll note that the SZ (a paper with a very good reputation) isn't shy to make uncritical mention of levitiertes Wasser. The German article about that notes that advertising therapeutic benefits of such water is illegal in Switzerland. Vexations (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Vexations:, @Ymblanter: I've done the deed. Obviously that shouldn't guarantee survival of the article (if consensus is that she's not notable, so be it). Also I admit the sources are mostly low-quality stuff, but that's typical of the sort of area for which she's known. The honest truth is that she's probably a bit-part actress who's notable for pedaling fringe-theories about water, but if you pedal fringe theories at the level of Bild, and get castigated by SZ, you're notable Elemimele (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, I would be fine with keeping the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unambiguous advertising. UPE spam. scope_creep^Talk 09:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem notable even after despamming. – SJ + 03:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashif Khan[edit]

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

This page has been problematic pretty much since its creation; I'm not seeing any significant news coverage or other indicators of the page meeting GNG. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. samee converse 11:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Office (American TV series) characters. ✗plicit 12:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Hudson[edit]

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

Subject already covered in List of The Office (American TV series) characters#Stanley Hudson. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby Flenderson for similar discussion. I recommend Redirect to List of The Office (American TV series) characters#Stanley Hudson, but I'd like to establish consensus on what to do. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 11:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It passes WP:GNG with https://www.looper.com/175377/whatever-happened-to-stanley-from-the-office/ and https://mashable.com/article/stanley-hudson-naps-the-office. It definitely needs a rewrite though. (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The first is about the actor not the character. The second is arguably in-depth, but it's a joke-like piece that could be used for a claim that he is memorable as a stereotype of a napping actor, but I have serious concerns it is reliable enough to suffice for it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither looper or mashable are strong sources, and especially not for a character who doesn't even contribute much to the story of the TV show. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 13:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into List of The Office (American TV series) characters. - Looper kinda awful source, while Mashable might be reliable, its weak. DarwinClean (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above account, DarwinClean, has requested an indefinite block after I politely questioned his immediate AfD and content trimming participation as characteristic of an older account. To the best of my knowledge, no misconduct was identified nor Checkuser tool run, but closing admins may want to take this unusual turn of events under advisement. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect unless better sources are found with no claim of signficance; the article right now is a pure plot summary (WP:FANCRUFT). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into List of The Office (American TV series) characters. Pahiy (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete British rail Locomotive 02 001 and British Rail Locomotive 02 004. I put less weight on the merge suggestions given that it is pointed out there are no reliable sources and noting the input from Thryduulf. British Rail Locomotive 02 003 should be discussed separately. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British rail Locomotive 02 001[edit]

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

Not independently notable. No reliable sources, only photographs. Cannot find a source that is actually about this individual locomotive, as opposed to the type as a whole (there were 20 locomotives of this type). Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have effectively the same issue:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At most this would merit a list entry at British Rail Class 02, but that would require a reliable source. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with British Rail Class 02, if someone unearths information suggesting this individual locomotive has some kind of notability of its own. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 11:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing notable about this locomotive Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful content into British Rail Class 02. Likewise for articles about other members of this class of locomotive. RomanSpa (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we also include British Rail Locomotive 02 003 in this merging process. For good order, I also suggest we get a commitment from a specialist in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains to carry out the merge appropriately. RomanSpa (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing at the articles about 001 or 004 that is all of reliably sourced, useful and not already in the British Rail Class 02 article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Thryduulf for the specialist input! RomanSpa (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if there is anything notable about an individual locomotive then mention it on the class page.Davidvaughanwells (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have said. Flickr seems like a WP:USERGENERATED to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note There's also British Rail Locomotive 02 003 which was boldly redirected by Fram. I don't think it's worthwhile keeping that in either form so should be deleted with the rest. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather that one was discussed separately as, as an article, it was in much different shape to these two and is preserved so it has greater potential notability - some preserved locos are individually notable, and there is a greater chance of sources (although I've not looked to see if there are any). Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, that one should be done separately, it's not as obviously NN as these two. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vauvenargues Kehi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. The highest tier he played on was the French third tier. While here, he played 3 league matches and one Coupe de la Ligue match (and 4 Coupe de France matches). As the Coupe de la Ligue match was not between two teams in a WP:FPL league, this doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL either. He got a news report after his recent and very unfortunate death. Geschichte (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG with the news about his death yesterday, and other earlier media articles, such as this. Also seems a bit pointy to nominate an article that's over 10 years, the day after his well-reported death - which is the peak of the interest in his Wikipedia article. Nfitz (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --FMSky (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments There isn't a French wiki article for him which suggests he probably wasn't that notable. However it's more WP:RECENTISM that he has popped up due to his untimely death that the main bulk of the web hits at. I am on the fence whether to delete or not. Govvy (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:GNG. There is plenty of recent coverage of his tragic death, but nothing of his career prior to that (except match reports and database entries - things far short of SIGCOV). We don't have articles about every non-notable person who died in a tragic accident. Jogurney (talk) 16:17, 7 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 12:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mário Neto[edit]

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

Fails WP:MMANOT guidelines by only having 1 fight in top tier promotions. Also fails WP:GNG as fight coverage is merely routine report. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 11:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raktim Dey Chatterjee[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker. No indication of notability. Most of the references are press release. Fails WP:GNG. Bapinghosh (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bapinghosh (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article is blatant promotional material (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 11:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious promo is obvious, otherwise has no non trivial independent coverage in reliable sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:11, 9 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 Seizure types#Subclinical seizures. ✗plicit 12:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subclinical seizure[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, even a medical dictionary. There's really nothing to say here but "a seizure that presents no clinical symptoms". The content belongs in seizure, perhaps also a brief mention in epilepsy. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 10:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 10:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 10:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to seizure, where I added a single sentence about this. There is nothing to merge, since the article is currently completely unsourced. TompaDompa (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @TompaDompa: I suggest instead Seizure types § Subclinical seizures because it points the reader directly to prose about their keyword, but I am biased because I, like you, just wrote it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and TompaDompa. Ajpolino (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground Driving Motor 3701[edit]

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

Despite most of the text being referenced there is no evidence that these individual train cars are notable enough for an article in a general purpose encyclopaedia beyond, at most, a sentence at London Underground Standard Stock#Preservation. Three of the articles were previously prodded by Fram but deprodded by the author, N1TH Music. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just discovered London Underground Driving Motor 3370, which was prodded by Black Kite. I've deprodded it in order to add it to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing inherently notable about these individual vehicles that can't be included in the relevant class articles. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not individually notable - I already removed some similar redlinks. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm struggling to see why this is of WP:NOTE. WP:NOTDATABASE. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trainsandotherthings (talk • contribs) 03:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator states that most of the text is referenced. I'm not fussed about the others but London Underground Driving Motor 3209 feels lengthy enough to retain as a separate article. Per WP:PRESERVE, "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." deleting this article does not preserve the content which I see no reason why it shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia that contains extensive rail content already. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. This particular article appears to pass WP:GNG and thus should be kept. NemesisAT (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the article that marks the particular vehicle out as any more notable than any of the other vehicles of its type. Any usuable information not in the class article, if any, should be merged into the latter. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had another look at the 3209 article, and it doesn't meet the GNG based on what's there currently - there isn't multiple pieces of in-depth coverage about that unit specifically in reliable, independent sources. The class is notable, the Island Line is notable but the individual unit isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would agree with the view that driving motors are not in themselves notable and any specifics can be included in the relevant article about the stock it belonged to. Dunarc (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with above. Anything specifically interesting can be merged. Turini2 (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete all, including 3209. There's an archive snapshot at https://web.archive.org/web/20210907194400/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_Driving_Motor_3209] it someone wants to write stuff into another article, or they can ask for a refund, or they have mount the thing under the talk page of the merged target to keep the old attribution if necessary. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:50, 11 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) 09:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eleni Mylona Chatzimichael[edit]

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

Distinctly non-notable politician and children's-books author, listed as mayor in absentia of a town in Cyprus currently part of the internationally not-recognized Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. We find nothing online, nor off, to support the person's notability. All we get are announcements of media presentations of mayoral elections' candidates (e.g. this), election results (e.g. this or this), publishers' author pages (e.g. this), dead links (e.g. this), and so on. -The Gnome (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Akanthou is a small village of 1.4K, nowhere near large or important enough to grant its mayors an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of a properly demonstrated pass of WP:NPOL #2 — but this is based entirely on primary sources, with not a whit of any reliable source coverage in real media shown at all, and that's not how making a mayor or writer notable works. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --CoryGlee (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bearcat. --Sreeram Dilak 04:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Measure of Wealth[edit]

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

Possible WP:ATD would be redirect to The Law (Scottish band). This has some coverage, but I couldn't establish that it is enough to meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Aside from the source from NME indicated in the article, I found a few reliable sources which talk about the album: [19], [20] and [21]. It is discussed in a paragraph in a book and briefly discussed in an article. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per ASTIG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Astig. SBKSPP (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nom per comments above. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lab (novel)[edit]

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

Possible WP:ATD is merge to Jack Heath, though the title is potentially ambiguous. No major books I could find of this title, though. Has some coverage, but not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, close to 400 libraries having this nn(?) book isn't bad:), and being reviewed by Booklist, School Library Journal, and Kirkus Reviews (see here) gives us 3 or "multiple reviews" so is a keep as meeting WP:NBOOK, so another book out of the nn cat (Yaaaayyy!!:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three reviews is more than enough for WP:NBOOK#1. pburka (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reviews noted above, in addition to the one from Charlie Jane Anders already in the article, are enough for WP:NBOOK. XOR'easter (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian James Freeman[edit]

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

Non-notable author, only notable for knowing a guy who studied Steven King who probably isn’t even notable himself. Dronebogus (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He won a notable award, Bram Stoker Award for Best First Novel for Black Fire, using the name James Kidman. Some of his books, thus his writing, did get reviewed such as at: https://ew.com/books/the-zombie-who-cried-human-sneak-peek/ https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-9838071-6-2 Dream Focus 00:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per DreamFocus.★Trekker (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this is just an unrelated technical comment, but “speedy keep” is only for AfDs so inarguably obvious there’s no point in presenting evidence— i.e. there’s a huge number of reliable sources already on the page or the nomination is gibberish. You might be thinking of the WP:SNOWBALL clause, which is similar but less extreme. Dronebogus (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy Keep" is also used in instances where the nomination is withdrawn and there are no other opinions in favour of deletion. It has become shorthand for "you should probably withdraw this", thus facilitating a speedy keep. You are, of course, free to disregard such a suggestion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added references to his some of his books I found reviews for. Dream Focus 15:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the award and reviews are enough for me. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep/Merge. There's clear consensus here against outright deletion. There's no clear consensus as to whether keeping or merging is the better option: given that this discussion has been open for a month, a talk page discussion is likely a better way of arriving at that consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World[edit]

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

No extensive independent coverage to demonstrate notability. All references come from Brown, or Brown affiliated sources. Josefaught (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Campus newspapers are plenty independent for almost all coverage of almost all research institutes themselves. I would like to note that this deletion request is clearly inappropriate retaliatory behavior by Josefaught, which operates as an ostensible sockpuppet account. Filetime (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Campus newspapers are not at all indepdent. They exist to create coverage of an institution however indepdent of the institution their structure is. We are an encyclopedia, not an indepth coverage source for a few particular places or institutions. We need to show importance beyond an institution itself for various manifestations and sub-units of an institution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maybe the page had already by updated by the time I came to look at it, but as it stands now the claim that All references come from Brown, or Brown affiliated sources does not stand up. Does the New York Times belong to Brown? Does the University of Texas? Athel cb (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there are reliable sources including the New York Times.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brown University#The Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World. Was about to close this, but the source analysis is incorrect. The NYT is an opinion piece written by someone who works at the institute—it has no bearing on its independent notability. The UTexas piece mentions the institute in passing, but it's an academic FAQ for undergrads, not a piece of journalism or scholarship. It would be sufficient to cover the basics of this topic within the existing section: Brown University#The Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World. czar 01:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist to consider and discuss Czar's contribution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per Czar's assessment. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See these sources ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] (and also WP:PAYWALL). I would also ask that the publishing history of the institute be taken into account in the context of WP:NJOURNALS. Filetime (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rathje, William L. (2012). Archaeology in the Making : Conversations through a Discipline. Michael Shanks, Christopher Witmore. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. p. 230. ISBN 978-1-136-18528-1. OCLC 823389985.
^ Counts, Derek; Tuck, Anthony (2009-11-23). KOINE: Mediterranean Studies in Honor of R. Ross Holloway. Oxbow Books. ISBN 978-1-78297-366-9.
^ Alcock, Susan E. (2014), "Joukowsky, Martha Sharp", in Smith, Claire (ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 4221–4222, doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_544, ISBN 978-1-4419-0465-2, retrieved 2021-08-15
^ Barrett, Chris (2010-09-10). "Brown's R.I. Hall receives LEED Gold". Providence Business News. Retrieved 2021-09-06.

If you're going to invoke "PAYWALL", the least you can do is quote from the sources. The first citation literally starts, "Let me read our web home page to you" and prints verbatim the Joukowsky homepage. That is not an independent source. Koine's coverage, despite being published by the institute (also not independent), appears to have little connection with the Institute. The third is about Martha Sharp Joukowsky. It has a single sentence on the institute. (Fine by me to redirect to her biography instead of the university's article.) The last is local news. As for the institute's publication history, I'm not seeing what sources remark on that publication history's noteworthiness. Altogether still not seeing what meets the GNG here, so merger/redirection remains the best option. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 02:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are quite a few book reviews critically engaging with the Joukowsky Institute Publications. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moved to AFC by creating editor. While technically not allowed, this shows intent to edit the article to make it compliant. I have thus closed my own nomination as withdrawn by nominator pending future work (non-admin closure) Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sassa Gurl[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Charlton (footballer)[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable footballer, per the absence of WP:GNG compliant sources cited in the article, and per the failure of my own search for sources.

While the individual does meet WP:NFOOT #2 due to their career with Liverpool, WP:NSPORT states "meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept", and I believe this is an example of a case where we should decline to keep the article.

The individual played in just three games for Liverpool in 1932, where coverage of the sport was considerably less expansive than it is today. They also played for the less prominent, but also professional, teams Bradford City and Derry City, but I haven't been able to find a separate record of them playing for those teams, let alone the number of games they played.

The upshot of this is that we have no independent or significant coverage of this player, and in its absence I do not believe we should - or can - have an article on them. BilledMammal (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. I have a book about Bradford City somewhere, will dig it out when I can and expand (moved house, it's in a box somewhere). Giant Snowman 10:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with GiantSnowman. Article meets criteria for inclusion and should be improved not deleted. NapHit (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFOOTBALL. Shouldn't have a problem finding coverage if one could access media from age. Nfitz (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for those saying it can be improved, perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear in my nomination. I don't believe that there is information available that will allow it to be improved, as my WP:BEFORE search, including of newspaper archives, turned up nothing. I suppose what I am trying to say is that for those !voting Keep, perhaps it would be prudent to attempt to prove this information exists, rather than assuming it? If it can be proven to exist, I would happily withdraw my nomination. BilledMammal (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
lean towards keep Nominator should understand footballers from the 1930s, well the main balk of sources at that time was against European politics and the on-set of WW2 in which a lot of information was destroyed in bombings/fires about these sort of things across all of Europe and the UK. Also a lot survived and another thing, pre-internet, what makes you assume sources for him are online did you even consider multiple off-line sources? I understand the delete argument, but I completely disagree with the rationale. Govvy (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider offline sources. Fortunately, digitization has been proceeding at an excellent pace in recent years, and so I searched newspaper archives for a reference to him, but to no avail. It is possible that coverage of him exists, but I believe my WP:BEFORE search has been sufficiently thorough that we need to demonstrate they exist, rather than assuming it. BilledMammal (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One thing is certain, in-depth press profiles on individual sportspeople was more rare and less prevalent then, than it is today. Geschichte (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mention on page 7 of the May 5, 1934 Londonderry Sentinel that Derry City had retained him - but I don't have enough access to the British Newspaper Archive to get the details. Digging further into the Sentinel, there are certainly numerous mentions of him throughout 1930s, until in October 1935 that appears to indicate he was transferred back to Bradford City. Searching for "Charlton" at "Bradford City" is a nightmare, as Charlton Athletic are in the same league, yielding over 21,000 hits in the 1930s alone. There are certainly some stuff digitized, but even now, only a small fraction of that Archives 750 million pages have been digitized! Nfitz (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked page 7 of the Saturday Morning, May 5, 1934 Londonderry Sentinel, but there was no mention of him. Are you sure you have the right page? (I also looked to see if there was a non-morning paper, but haven't been able to find one - however, that could have been an error of my search. Could you clarify whether you were referring to the morning paper?) BilledMammal (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again User:BilledMammal, it ways Page 7, 8. So perhaps it's in something continued on Page 8? The URL to the BNA is [22]. The bit of text I can see is "Derry City have notified the I.F.A. that they have offered term* to the following players and have placed them on their retained list:—Thomas Pinkerton. John Charlton". Nfitz (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I see it now - it's entirely on page 8. Unfortunately, the fragment you have quoted consists of the totality of the coverage of Charlton. I think we would classify it as a WP:PASSINGMENTION. BilledMammal (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY comfortably. What that says about the effectiveness of those guidelines in weeding out the notable from the non-notable, I'm still not entirely sure, but as they stand, they are fulfilled by John Charlton. Montgomery15 (talk) 23:14, 9 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) 06:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Sekhar Giri[edit]

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

Non-notable academic ("assistant professor" without something strong is usually essentially an assertion of non-notability). Fake references added and notability tag removed by article creator. —Kusma (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to see here. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No verifiable claim of notability, under GNG, PROF, or anything else. No publications visible under this name in Google Scholar or MathSciNet (none of the matches to "C* Giri" or "Chandra Sekhar" in MathSciNet appear to be this person). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Bapinghosh (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. No indication of meeting GNG or NPROF. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NPROF and GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassiopeia (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Academics can't be speedy deleted easily alas. Otherwise, was a good candidate for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomadicghumakkad (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: @Cassiopeia and Nomadicghumakkad:, there was a formatting issue preventing your edits from being saved properly (see page history), please check that you are happy with your votes. —Kusma (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma Thanks for informing. Same vote. Cassiopeia talk 20

21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

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. There's persuasive arguments that there's no merge-worthy content here. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Coupe de France First Preliminary Round[edit]

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

WP:NOTSTATS violation. We are not a database of sports results, especially for preliminary rounds of individual competitions. (Appears to have been previously PROD'd, deleted, and refunded all at the behest of the same person - not sure what's up with that). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was created by me as a split from an article containing the results for every round of this tournament. As roughly half the teams are knocked out each round, the first round was half of the article. I believe this was done for several such articles, and it is my understanding that another editor has reconfigured the articles to be split by region rather than round, which I agree is more sensible. The series of technical actions may have been a result of a lack of awareness of these changes. As long as the regional articles exist, it is fair to delete this article and other round-based articles for this tournament. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Salvus: Are you able to confirm the above? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 10:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @Onetwothreeip: Yes, you are right. As the first six preliminary rounds of the Coupe de France take place between teams from the same region, we decided to split the page and create one article for each regional group so that it is easier to see the path of the teams in the preliminary rounds. Dr Salvus 10:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge into something called 2017–18 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, similar to e.g. 2011–12 FA Cup qualifying rounds (which is an established article series), and add some prose/context so it's not just a dump of stats. Giant Snowman 11:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman, it arleady existists 2017-18 Coupe de France Preliminary Rounds. As I said in the comment above we decided to split the page by creating an article for each regional qualifying group since the article weighed more than 0.5 gigabytes. This article was created on 31 December 2018, which is before I split the article, but it does seem that it is preferable to split the article by regional group rather than by rounds. Dr Salvus 13:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this AfD is similar to this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018–19 Coupe de France First Preliminary Round. Dr Salvus 13:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman, you commented Delete - unnecessary level of detail for such an early preliminary round in the competition. Unsure that we need all the regional articles as well. at the previous AfD for a near-identical article five months ago. Have your feelings changed? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: slightly; I don't think the article should remain as it, it should either be merged - or deleted in line with the last AFD. Giant Snowman 21:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman, I've already done so between March and April creating an article for each regional qualifier see for example 2017–18 Coupe de France Preliminary Rounds, Méditerranée. All articles contain informations about the first round Dr Salvus 21:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GS, why put keep/merge then, if you don't think it should remain as is? (Side note, since tone doesn't come across online very well, I want to be clear I'm not trying to hassle you, I'm just confused.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see see a problem with the article, it's pretty specific and straight-forward. There are lots of sources, I have nothing against it and it helps paint the picture for the articles it is linked too. It's far too big to merge somewhere else. Govvy (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Govvy: read my comment just underneath and read what Onetwothreeip had to say. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the preliminary rounds have been split by region, this article is no longer useful. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Paul Vaurie: Are you saying this in fact duplicated content? Govvy (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: I am not exactly sure what you mean by that, but I what I mean is that the first prelimary round of this edition of the Coupe de France is already recorded in seperate regional articles. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dr Salvus.4meter4 (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant now that we have 2017–18 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, which covers this topic better anyway Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert R. Bertrand[edit]

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

Non-notable sound engineer. Fails WP:ANYBIO because he was only nominated for an Oscar once. Mottezen (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. I mean, sure, anyone can be nominated for one Academy Award, but this particular sound engineer seems to have had a particularly lengthy and productive career. BD2412 T 06:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BD2412. All Oscar nominees are by definition notable, even more so in this case, since the nomination was for Best Picture winner The Sting. Subject has hundreds of credits ranging over nearly half a century. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All Oscar nominees are by definition notable Can you point me to the policy that says this? Mottezen (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above and the extra info found by BD2412. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The only secondary source that was added since I started this discussion was a wedding announcement in the Hi-Desert Star, a newspaper serving a community of 4,000 to 8,000 people. The article title starts with "Irene Scoggin", likely a member of this small community. Therefore, the paper only talks about the subject of this article because she's marrying him. If this is the best source this person can muster in "40" years of career (IMDb only notes 13 years), then this article can't be expanded beyond the stub it is and should be deleted. Way off of WP:GNG and not meeting any WP:SNG. Mottezen (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much of Bertrand's early work as boom man was uncredited. The American Film Institute Catalog indicates that his first listed credit was in 1935. Furthermore, after decades of work on hundreds of projects, he was entrusted with the top sound position on a major studio film that won the Oscar as Best Picture and earned him an Oscar nomination. If that is still not notable then only a small number of sound men would be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To me this sound engineer seems notable with being nominated with a Oscar and sound engineering in notable films and television programs. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 23:17, 7 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) 06:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Icthyophilia[edit]

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

Clear failure of WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIC, and WP:NEO. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an English word; just cod Latin! Andrew🐉(talk) 09:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dictionary definition. Almost everything in the world is liked by someone. We could have made such a dictionary entry about every animal in the world. Geschichte (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NW1223_{(Howl at me|My hunts)} 20:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's not really that notable enough- and I say this as an Inclusionist. However I don't think that the author should be discouraged from creating new articles.Dunutubble (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find any sources. From WP:NOTDIC: Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition, but they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. --Coolperson177 (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Wife's Dignity (1967)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NFILM. ––FormalDude talk 02:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 02:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 02:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tenative Keep - this film significantly pre-dates the internet era, and seems to have been a major entry in the Egyptian film industry, featuring many notable Egyptian film actors. Appears to meet NFILM Inclusionary criteria #2. If someone has access to most Egyptian sources from that time and concludes the film was not covered, I'll change !vote to delete, but I find it likely the film was covered significantly by Egyptian press at the time, and the film appears to still be shown on Arabic channels. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No evidence of BEFORE. Appears to have also been released as My Wife's Honour and in Arabic transliteration. Appears in global catalogue of 1967 films,^[1] discussed as an iconic pairing of Egyptian actors,^[2], discussed 40+ years after release.^[3]

References

^ Cowie, Peter; Elley, Derek (1977). World Filmography: 1967. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press. p. 102. ISBN 978-0-498-01565-6.
^ "Egyptian Cinema's Hottest Couples". eniGma Magazine. 1 February 2016.
^ "صورة نادرة لصلاح ذوالفقار مع شادية في كواليس «كرامة زوجتي» | فن | وكالة أنباء سرايا الإخبارية - حرية سقفها السماء". www.sarayanews.com (in Arabic). 24 June 2013.

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kindly note that books citations have been added to the page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masry684 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the new references prove notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tex Brown[edit]

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

This article was tagged as a hoax but apparently existed but the only sources I could find for this TV show are blogs and IMDb and concern how shabby and unprofessional the production team was. When I tried to look at one of the sources listed, my browser gave me a warning that it was a phishing site. I think this show doesn't meet our notability standards. Existing isn't enough. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Minor production in niche online platform, not seeing any coverage at all in reliable sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it were real and notable, the amount of fake information in the article makes it unsalvageable. Gonnym (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the one who tried to CSD: I'm now understanding that it's not a hoax (that the show exists, at least), but there's not enough reliable sources here to build a proper article. Some relevant comments by the creator here and here. — Bilorv (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As creator of the page and as a follower of the initial episodes of Tex Brown that I waited to watch diligently, I think the initial episodes were trully impressive and I held great hopes of an immense success even an adoption by a bigger series and movies channel as a rerun. But alas the background disagreements even while filming the episodes and resigning of key actors including the lead role actor Tripp Ali became a true drama of bickering between the actors and the director and his management. Sad as it is, Tex Brown missed the opportunity of becoming an iconic series with the gay and gay-friendly communities, such a great story line and frankly wonderful acting of the lead role by Tripp Ali. In retrospect I would also support deleting our Wikipedia page due to lack of notability that it could have had under different circumstances. werldwayd (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of promoting the discussion, a producer of the show has left comments on the talk page of Tex Brown article See here and has requested that we reinstate the earlier deleted text as more factual and representative of the show than what we have now. I don't know if it will have a bearing on the final concencus here, but it is worthy of consideration at least. werldwayd (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is an absolute mess, mainly expanded by one user (sockpuppet) with very poor grammar and spelling. Now that I look at it, there's no evidence of notability either. wizzito | say hello! 05:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silverlake Vineyard[edit]

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

Vineyard does not meet WP:NCORP- coverage consists of WP:PASSING mentions, PR puff-pieces and non-independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major, well-known tourist attraction. Coverage in the South China Morning Post[23], Rough Guides[24] and PrestigeOnline.com[25] is independent and fairly in-depth, and this is without touching on the plethora of Thai sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage in the cited sources is minimal, with just brief mentions and not in-depth, with the exception of one source,[26]. That source is questionable though: "This luxury tour—sponsored by the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT)..." Vexations (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I do think the SCMP coverage (here's a snippet in case it's paywalled: justpaste.it/4338k) is in-depth enough, and the others I mentioned above go beyond mere mentions, devoting multiple paragraphs to the place. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Paul 012, These sources are promotional, not in-depth and do not meet WP:NCORP
    - [27]: If you’d prefer to visit somewhere nearer home, try Silverlake Vineyard which is located near to Buddha Mountain (Khao Cheejan). The winery produces Sauvignon Blanc, Shiraz, Cabernet Sauvignon and Chardonnay and offers several interesting tourist attractions. The pleasant Silverlake restaurant serves a variety of Thai and Western dishes.
    - [28] The Monsoon Valley’s sprawling Hua Hin vineyard in Thailand, PB Valley Khao Yai Winery, close to Khao Yai National Park, and Silverlake’s vineyard in Pattaya are among the new latitude regions that are rich in soil nutrients and have plenty of springwater, making the best terroir.
    - [29] winner of Best Villa Development (Eastern Seaboard); Silverlake Vineyard and Winery by Silverlake Vineyard Co., Ltd.,
    - [30]: The Tuscan-inspired Silverlake Vineyard in Pattaya is one of the prettiest wineries closest to Bangkok, and is worth a trip for its spicy, smoky shiraz and juicy chenin blancs (perfect for pairing with a fiery papaya salad).
    - [31] Set against natural beauty of the surrounding hills and the silver shimmer of the vineyard’s name sake lake, Silverlake vineyard is a must-visit. The vineyard has also earned itself a reputation as a destination for outstanding live music and performances through their commitment to showcasing the best local and international artists.
    - [32]: Silverlake Vineyard’s sprawling property has whimsical windmills, colorful garden blooms in French-style symmetrical landscaping, Japanese bridges, gardens with metal porch swings and an open amphitheater designed for concerts and parties. It produces one of Thailand’s best shiraz and shiraz blends like Tango Shiraz Cabernet Sauvignon, and 2010 and 2012 Private Reserves. It also carries a 2011 Chenin Blanc. The estate has facilities for making wine and juice. There’s a guided tour of the winery facilities, and wine-tasting at the Cellar Door, a charming little pub run by its small but efficient staff. One of the thrills of going to Silverlake is the arresting view of the Khao Chi Chan mountain, where the biggest image of Buddha is sculpted on its limestone cliffs. Our guide said that the Buddha, measuring 70 meters tall and 109 meters wide, is made of pure gold. Vexations (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, it seems we're looking at different sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Paul 012, I was looking at the ones that are used in the article: The only one I didn't quote was https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/travel/article/2057438/pattaya-weird-wonderful-world-brazen-and-bizarre Vexations (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Paul_012. Thanks to Paul for finding new references. Passes WP:GNG. There is now no justification whatsoever for this article to be deleted. VocalIndia (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a not one single standout reference been presented to indicated that this 500 acre farm vineyard is notable. References that have been presented so far are paid advertising in the tourist guides to bring in visitors. They are really mediocre, best Villa development, prettiest vineyard. They are all PR. Vistors can buy Grape Juice and Grape Juice Products. Where is the international awards for the quality wine, these types of references of notable vineyard require? What is, is a vineyard that sells plonk to tourist. There is not one international recognition or award, to indicate it is notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "A vineyard that sells plonk to tourists"—I don't dispute that assessment, but there's nothing in the notability guidelines that say such places cannot be notable, nor that vineyards may only achieve notability through "international awards for quality wine". It's quite clear that the place is very much unabashedly a tourist attraction. Sources that cover it in that aspect, if independent and in-depth, should help establish notability just fine. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the source analysis by Vexations shows that it doesn't meet notability requirements as a tourism venue either. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv^🍁 00:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The winery is notable as a tourist attraction but fails to be notable as a winery. WP:WINETOPICS, while not an official guideline, includes valid notability criteria for wineries and this winery would fail. But based on Paul_012's sources, it's notable as a tourist attraction. I agree with Vexations that the sources currently in the article are junk. They should be replaced with the ones Paul_012 found. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Princeton University. Seddon ^talk 21:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton University Department of History[edit]

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

Lack of requisite independent coverage to warrant an independent article. Filetime (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete departments are rarely notable. Coverage can be provided in an article on the college (sub-unit of the university) it is part of. We do not need separate coverage of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonably-sourced and well-written article on the preeminent history department in the United States. It has multiple MacArthur Fellowship recipients and notable professors and alumni. Deletion would make Wikipedia a lesser encyclopedia. Cbl62 (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Princeton University -- Bad precedent -- Princeton is a very prestigious university, and this may well apply also to its history department. The problem is that we cannot have an article on every university department. If we allow this one, we will find it very difficult to resist having an article on every department in every university in every country. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fear that an article on the No. 1 ranked history department could be used a precedent for allowing articles on lesser departments doesn't hold weight to me. All history departments are not created equal, and with its impressive number of MacArthur fellowships and prominent alumni, Princeton's is clearly notable. Cbl62 (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've been working on the Princeton University collection of articles for a bit, with my work mainly on the main university page (I've added around 100,000 bytes to the page). I'd urge against redirecting to the main page, as that would result in having to cover other departments in a similar fashion. The page is also already quite long and adding this page -- and I'm assuming additional departmental pages -- would further lengthen and clutter the page. Besides that point, Princeton's history department is typically ranked as the top program in the US. The page is well-written, unlike other departmental pages, and has established prominence with the amount of MacArthur Fellows, Pulitzer Prizes, and notable alumni. This page does also have a NYT article supporting it, and I could cite Leitch's 1978 "A Princeton Companion" to expand a bit more on the page; there's most likely other RS for the page, considering its the top in the country. I fail to see why the page should be deleted. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually, upon further review and (while brief) attempt at searching for reliable sources, I'd say its fair to delete the article, as besides the awards and notable alumni, there isn't much independent mention of it. The New York Times Magazine article appears to be the only true, independent mention covering it as a whole. While I see some people arguing for a redirect, there is little reason to unless the main page—one which I've worked extensively on— is to include information about every department. As Wikipedia isn't a directory for every single department, deleting should suffice; also, while the history department is high ranking, so are many other Princeton departments, which I've also come to realize shouldn't be a reason to keep it as a separate page. Other departmental articles that do not meet the qualifications should follow a similar route. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG and per WP:NINHERITED (awards won by alumni do not make the department notable), see also my own comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princeton University Department of Chemistry. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv^🍁 00:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Princeton University. Any interested party can add any significant facts regarding this department there, but merging should not be a prerequisite of this close. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.
Comment I'm going to hold off on !voting for now, but I would strongly urge PoliticsIsExciting and other keep !voters to bolster the sourcing in pursuit of a WP:HEY outcome. On the one hand, we have a profile of the department in The New York Times Magazine, which is an exceptionally strong source in terms of GNG qualification, but on the other hand, it's only one source, and we need at least two. I want to know how much coverage A Princeton Companion has of the department, and given that that work was written by someone deeply associated with the university and published by the Princeton University Press, others may want more clearly independent sources.

I am very unpersuaded by the arguments around notable alumni, which have no basis in policy. That's not how we determine notability any more than subscriber count is for YouTubers. The relevant guideline here is WP:NORG, and if we find enough sourcing to keep under that, the only precedent we'll be setting here is that we follow our guidelines. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll give a solid attempt at bolstering the sourcing and updating information for the article. You are correct that Leitch's work does have relation to the university—and is why a page shouldn't entirely be referenced by it—so I'll try to use it to only fill in the more precise details. As for the notable alumni, I was simply trying to provide some credence towards the history department being notable, among it also being the number one ranked department, typically; granted, I do see now that that statistic by it itself doesn't validate its notability. Like I said, though, I'll give a solid attempt at providing additional reliable sources per Wikipedia policies in order to save the article. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See comment I made above. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the main article to serve as the subject of a redirect: better to delete. Erase the primary and unreliable sources from this article and what's left? czar 02:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Princeton University.4meter4 (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: A lot of the inflated references are duplicates of the NYTimes article, which is a reliable source. The references from Princeton cannot be used to establish notability. More sources are needed independent of the subject; I suggest merging this with the primary Princeton articlespace, or another articlespace about Princeton. Multi7001 (talk) 03:13, 14 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 Princeton University. Seddon ^talk 21:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton University Department of Chemistry[edit]

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

Lack of independent coverage. Filetime (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See similar articles lacking enough in-depth 3rd party coverage to warrant independent articles:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This department is clearly notable. It might need a few more references but they are likely to exist and be found by someone in the US, not Australia. Bduke (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The other departments should be nominated separately if this is deleted and not deleted on the coat tails of this one. Bduke (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The department has both historical and modern significance. While not every chemistry (or any) department at a given university would be noteworthy, some are depending on whom and what was done there. The article should be improved some (some added, some trimmed), but it definitely passes with WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMICA given it's history. This might also be better as a procedural keep given it was nominated as a bundle. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 00:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost all the sources are internal to Princeton University. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be built on independent coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Which independent sources show WP:SIGCOV here? I am not seeing anything. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tautomers said "While not every chemistry (or any) department at a given university would be noteworthy, some are depending on whom and what was done there." The problem with the page as it stands is that it doesn't let us into the secret what important chemistry was done at Princeton. No doubt there was some, but why not say? Instead we get a list of present faculty members, none of whom I had heard of (but that may be because I was trained in chemistry too long ago). After some serious work to improve the page I will probably be willing to vote keep. Athel cb (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment. I earlier commented that if important work in chemistry was done at Princeton then the article should give examples. Trying to follow this up I've been looking at Web of Science and haven't succeeded in finding anything important since 1935, when Henry Eyring introduced the idea of the activated complex. But that was a long time ago: what major advances in chemistry were made at Princeton more recently? Athel cb (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsupported claims of notability (what the the keep !votes are) are not enough to override a lack of WP:GNG. If the only sources are internal to the department, then there's not much that we can do about this for an encyclopedic article. Plenty of universities have departments of chemistry, probably quite a few have been the site of major advances, but unless we have sources which cover them, that does not matter, since notability is dependant on sources and not on editor opinion of what is notable and what is not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv^🍁 00:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Princeton University. Not notable enough for a standalone article. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 17:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Princeton University. Any interested party can add any significant facts regarding this department there, but merging should not be a prerequisite of this close. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Presumptive redirect to Princeton University, unless additional sourcing is added and a compelling case for NORG is presented. We very rarely allow articles for individual university departments, so where they are present, they need to justify it. That hasn't been done here. I support redirection over deletion because it's something someone might plausibly look up, and it'll preserve the history allowing it to be more easily restored if sourcing is created or found in the future. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per those above. Oppose merge as WP:Undue weight and because of lack of RS.4meter4 (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage by reliable sources. Most are from the subject itself or self-promotional. I suggest merge some of this content with the primary articlespace of Princeton, or delete. Multi7001 (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Geschichte (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Twelfth Imam[edit]

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

Non-notable book that fails both WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG that has been tagged as needing additional references for ten years. There is only one reference, a list of books where the plot is briefly given. Aspects (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I did manage to find a couple reviews, one for Publishers Weekly and other from the Library Journal, but that was about it, meaning it doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK. Isabelle ^🔔 14:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, wow! a popular library book (WorldCat shows over 1000 libraries have it, and yet reviews are so scant, it may be a nyt best seller as an "inside the list" hit pops up in a goog search here (alas a subscription is required), and here shows 3 reviews (Booklist in addition to the 2 mentioned above) so with multireviews plus a (highly likely) bestseller it meets WP:NBOOK and is a keep from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv^🍁 00:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Number 8 on this list of best-sellers from November 2010. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments have been presented that demonstrate the sources discussed here do not meet the GNG guideline. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hogan Hall[edit]

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

Lack of in-depth independent coverage Filetime (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a newspaper reference to the article. The building was also discussed in The New York Times among other sources regarding a protest in 1979, and more recently gained coverage in several sources including The Washington Post when a student "opened a restaurant" in his dorm. There is also likely information available on this historic building's use as a nursing home from 1898 to 1977, but not easy to find as we don't have the name of the nursing home. NemesisAT (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was St. Luke's Nursing Home per the Columbia Spectator. The name suggests it had an affiliation with what is now Mount Sinai Morningside. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage are cited from independent, reliable sources. Notability is not inherited (per Columbia University as the host subject); Wiki is not a public directory. Highly recommend merging this into a section of Columbia University. Multi7001 (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Columbia University is already very lengthy, I think it would be better to keep the pages separate to avoid expanding an already large article. NemesisAT (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv^🍁 00:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Frank Hogan#Legacy. Not enough in-depth coverage for an independent article, and the dorm is mentioned at that target. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I am not opposed to it being included into a new list-article on Residence halls of Columbia University (currently a redlink). See Category:University and college dormitories in the United States for other list-articles. I would leave it to editors of that list-article to decide whether to merge this article in, so the current article becomes a redirect, or not. At least one other Columbia University dorm has a Wikipedia article by the way. The collection of all Columbia University housing certainly is notable, and too detailed to include into Columbia University article itself. In absence of such a list-article, simply "Keep". --Doncram (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the old newspaper article, the Washington Post article, and the New York times article are together enough for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Frank Hogan#Legacy per Onel5969. Sources provided are not enough to satisfy WP:NBUILDING. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the subject may not meet NBUILDING, it passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent references. Whether we should ultimately house this content elsewhere is a merge proposal not an AFD topic.4meter4 (talk) 23:18, 13 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.