< February 11	February 13 >

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Cabaret and Bar[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement, and is not notable Uwsi (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: page creator). I've expanded the stub to note some of the performers and shows hosted by the venue. These are just from the past couple years. The venue had existed for much longer, and there's a lot more to add in terms of performance history. Uwsi, as a very new editor, you might want to know that WP:BEFORE suggests you should search for coverage prior to nominating an article for deletion. I vote to keep and expand this entry about a notable LGBT establishment. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – doesn't read like an advertisement (and if it did, deletion is not cleanup), and the sources, e.g. Frommer's, local news, other books/magazines, seem likely to show notability. If the nominator or someone else would like to provide some explanation of why the sources are inadequate (more than just "and is not notable"), I'd be glad to reconsider, but they seem to be more-or-less reliable and to discuss the establishment in-depth. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SpareBank 1 SR-Bank[edit]

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

Article reads like an obvious advertisement Uwsi (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it was written 16 years ago by a user with no connection to the bank, does not contain advertising language and is about a company listed on the country's stock exchange. The sourcing is bad though, since the requirements were more lenient 16 years ago. Geschichte (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does not "read[] like an obvious advertisement": it provides neutral facts about the bank and its history. I agree with Geschichte that the present sourcing is clearly subpar, but there seems to be quite a bit of coverage available in Google News, Google Scholar, Norwegian-language outlets, etc., and in any event notability hasn't been contested. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. improved intro paragraph to make it less promotional. I have added a couple of new citations. Seems like a descent size bank from Norway.Chelokabob (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For now, I see no advertising tone in the article.--Art&football (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Center for a Secure Free Society[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. All refs are own refs. WP:BEFORE reveals social media links but nothing better. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Only primary sources and socials, no reliable sources or significant coverage. Garnarblarnar (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, no sources other than their own. End it now. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:03, 19 February 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decreasing graduation completion rates in the United States[edit]

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

This article was created in 2011 by a student as part of a college course, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Courses/Spring 2011/Advanced Seminar in Political Communication (Robert Mann). The article contradicts itself on basic items like whether graduation completion rates in the US have in fact been decreasing. An older and better article covering the same topic, Educational attainment in the United States, exists, so I see no reason to keep this one. Perhaps a small amount of the content could be merged there. Apocheir (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Apocheir (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Apocheir (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not enough notability. RuffleStiltskin (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2022 (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. Closing a few hours early per WP:SNOW. Hog Farm _Talk 19:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Suriname-related articles[edit]

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

This type of list can be considered depecrated, per this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this AFD. The community does not need an index to get "access" to Surinamese topics. Geschichte (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this point, there is enough of a precedent to start a bulk AfD and/or mass PROD of country indices, and any further singular nominations could be construed as disruptive if there is not a peculiarity like the one I described in the recent Malawi nomination. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Precedent is now set to remove all these Index lists as is being currently done with the others. -Imcdc (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... per everyone. Deprecated list and precedent has been set already to remove all others. Ajf773 (talk) 09:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn't at all useful and there's clearly a consensus to delete lists of this type. So I can't think of a good reason to keep it. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would be useful if we didn't had the categories and wikiprojects. TolWol56 (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2022 (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 /trainwreck. The first six as a batch were probably fine, but further inclusion of 12 articles was not going to come to a consensus with NSPORTS concurrently being in the middle of a contentious debate. I would suggest rather than 19 separate AfDs, which no one wants, that the creator, nominator and interested parties see if draftification might be an amenable solution until such point as suitable sourcing can be identified. Star Mississippi 02:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poul Nielsen (footballer, born 1915)[edit]

And others listed below by Cbl62

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

Article created in a rapid spree by creator based on database entries only (a behaviour for which creator has been previously sanctioned), thus failing WP:NOTDATABASE at the very least and also failing WP:GNG until such time somebody actually looks for sources. Should be deleted until such time somebody can actually bother to do the actual legwork and find proper sources for it, i.e. keeping a red link to encourage article (and not database entry) creation. These are the archetypical example of cookie-cutter-no-effort article creation which is not conducive to improving the encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. the rationale is that there is WP:NORUSH to have these articles and mainspace is not indefinite draft space. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete is fine by me, and what I was initially suggesting (if a bit verbose about it). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These all meet WP:NFOOTY having played in international matches for their national team. Creating articles rapidly is not a valid reason for deletion (and these were done 2+ months ago). This is a WP:POINTY nomination based on the previous AfD attempt at the similar article of Marcel Rewenig, their unhappiness with the closure, including this with the closer. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are terrible at mind reading; and for the last time, NFOOTY is not an inclusion criteria (by itself). "X played professional football" is not an exemption from meeting either WP:GNG or not falling into WP:NOT. WP:MEATBOT behaviour is grounds for sanctions, and we should not keep these articles indefinitely in mainspace if nobody is working to improve them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Due to failure to meet WP:GNG, and violation of WP:NOTDATABASE - an article sourced only to databases cannot be anything but a database. Further, I note that WP:NFOOTY is not sufficient reason to keep; per WP:NSPORT, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. BilledMammal (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Soft delete~~ all the Nielsens, per my above reasoning, and per Cbl62. BilledMammal (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Draftify; while I don't believe this articles are sufficiently developed that they will be useful to anyone who does manage to find sources, it appears like a reasonable compromise and I can support it now and for future groups like this. BilledMammal (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, for now. ~~Five different bios about different people in one AFD is not a good idea IMO~~ 19 different bios in a single AFD nomination is absolutely absurd, and this should be speedily closed in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Updated comment at 00:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is fundamentally the same: these are all WP:NOTDATABASE violations, and there's WP:NORUSH to have them in article space if nobody is going to spend time improving them - and the article creator is obviously not interested in doing that, so it would be unfair to burden the rest of the community with that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are all clear violations of WP:NOTDATABASE, and if you consider a database to be a primary source, WP:OR - as such, they are appropriate to group together. Ideally, the prod notice would not have been challenged without correcting the WP:NOT violation, but as it was we are now here. BilledMammal (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: I often share your concern with bundling, but in this case the bundling is appropriate given that each of the articles were created at the same time, one being copy pasted from the other, and having identical sourcing and virtually identical content with only minor tweaks. Cbl62 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Closer, please note that this discussion has been subject to canvassing, through a notification issued at the noticeboard of a partisan group - WP:VOTESTACKING. BilledMammal (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Partsian group"- not true. It's the relevant WikiProject. And it'll show up in the WikiProject's article alerts soon anyway. Claiming that a WikiProject is partisan is just assuming bad faith. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's the relevant WikiProject, composed of some group of people who tend to behave in a certain, almost pre-determined way, at AfDs. So yes, whether intentionally or not, it has the appearance (and one could probably also find evidence of it if they had time to waste) of being a partisan group. And appearances are important... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The alerts are less of a WP:VOTESTACKING issue, because they are less prominent. And having a predetermined point of view isn't an issue; notifying editors with a predetermined point of view is. I would also note that I can demonstrate that WP:NFOOTY is partisan when it comes to deletion discussions about football players, if that would convince you that these notifications are inappropriate? BilledMammal (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep five international footballers that have been randomly added into one nomination, no evidence of WP:BEFORE being done, and each one would need to be evaluated on individual merits. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph2302 The issue is not GNG (even the article creator didn't do BEFORE, FWIW) - although yes, the articles do fail GNG, it's WP:NOT. Failing WP:NOT doesn't require you to go look into Danish national archives for newspapers to determine whether the articles do fail WP:NOT or not. WP:BEFORE says "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". The main concern is not notability. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph2302 There is nothing "random" about the grouping of these articles for deletion. As noted below, all of them (19 actually) were created at the same with only minor tweaks. They are appropriately dealt with as a group. Cbl62 (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete the Nielsens. The articles were created as part of a rapid spree in which articles were created in less than an hour on 19 Danish football players named Nielsen:

Wilhelm Nielsen (Danish footballer) Dec 21 at 19:38, 1,358‎ characters
Poul Nielsen (footballer, born 1915) Dec 21 at 19:34 +1,343‎ characters
Leo Nielsen (footballer) Dec 21 at 19:31 +1,334‎ characters
Kaj Nielsen (footballer) Dec 21 at 19:28 +1,360‎ characters
Kai Nielsen (footballer) Dec 21 at 19:26 +1,341‎ characters
Jørgen Nielsen (footballer, born 1923) Dec 21 at 19:23 +1,358‎ characters
John Nielsen (footballer, born 1911) Dec 21 at 19:20 +1,341 characters‎
Hugo Nielsen Dec 21 at 19:18 +1,342‎ characters
Henry Nielsen (footballer) Dec 21 at 19:17 +1,367‎ characters
Frank Nielsen (Danish footballer) Dec 21 at 19:13 +1,327‎ characters
Flemming Nielsen (footballer, born 1954) Dec 21 at 19:11 +1,380 characters‎
Erik Nielsen (footballer, born 1938) Dec 21 at 19:09 +1,322‎ characters
Erik Nielsen (footballer, born 1932) Dec 21 at 19:07 +1,359‎ characters
Benny Nielsen (footballer, born 7 March 1951) Dec 21 at 19:01 +1,346 characters
Arthur Nielsen (footballer) Dec 21 at 18:59 +1,354‎ characters
Arno Nielsen Dec 21 at 18:57 +1,348‎ characters
Allan Nielsen (footballer, born 1953) Dec 21 at 18:54 +1,305 characters
Aksel Nielsen (footballer) Dec 21 at 18:46 +1,355‎ characters
Ernst Nielsen Dec 21 at 18:45 +1,367‎ characters

The articles are identical microstubs of about 1,350 characters, each copy/pasted with only minor tweaks (principally changing the given name) and supported only by the same generic citation to "EU Football and "worldfootball.ne". There is no SIGCOV presented on any of them. Deletion should be without prejudice to someone re-creating proper articles on any of the Nielsens who are actually notable. Cbl62 (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I share Joseph2302's concerns about this mass nomination, hard to see each on their own merits and I too wonder if WP:BEFORE has been done. I'm also not a fan of the initial PROD, which partly read "...Should be deleted until such time somebody can actually bother to do the actual legwork and find proper sources for it, i.e. keeping a red link to encourage article (and not database entry) creation." Why is the nominator not being bothered to do the actual legwork? Surely that's what this site is about, users adding to other users work? There seems to be too much lazy editing going on these days, perhaps there should be a term for it? Construction-shy, expansion-shy, work-shy? StickyWicket (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AssociateAffiliate: WP:BEFORE says "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". The main concern is not notability. As for the rest of your comment, "collaborative editing" does not mean that we should accept sub-standard entries which violate one or more core policies (in this case, WP:NOT) simply because there is a remote possibility that an unspecified someone with enough time and will to do so could possibly make them into something more useful. It's not like we're deleting particularly valuable content: $playerName ($dateOfBirth – $dateOfDeath) was a Danish footballer.[1] He played in $numberOfMatches for the Denmark national football team (from/during/in) $timePeriod.[2] is the type of simple content you could literally program a bot to create... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC) edit: rewrite with php style variable syntax to make it more obvious 20:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AssociateAffiliate: We have here 19 near-identical, one-line articles created at the rate of about two per minute. When microstub articles like this are created en masse, how much time do you think should be spent on WP:BEFORE before nominating each of them? Cbl62 (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all international footballers who meet WP:NFOOTY. Articles need improving, not deletion. --SuperJew (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, an entirely irrelevant comment which completely misses the mark. NFOOTY is not a standard for inclusion by itself, and does not exempt articles from GNG, much less exempt them from WP:NOTDATABASE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is entirely relevant. WP:NFOOTY is a reasonable assumption of notability. The question for AfD is "is this topic notable". The question you're asking is "is this a well-written article". --SuperJew (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is there a website that contains old Danish newspapers? And has anyone done a BEFORE search on any of these? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Mediestream, but unless you're in Copenhagen it won't be very useful. And I've done a brief BEFORE search, but as the issue is WP:NOTDATABASE, not WP:GNG, one isn't needed. BilledMammal (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just want to point out that the editor who nominated the first batch articles (then said "Oh, and those as well" after another editor listed more) is also the same editor who opened an RFC on overhauling NSPORTS. This appears to me to be a little WP:POINTY in that respect. I would suggest that these types of AfDs, especially bulk AfDs, be minimized unless/until NSPORTS is overhauled. ~~Having said my piece on that, I recuse myself from !voting in this AfD.~~ — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:POINT only applies where an editor does something they don't support to make a point and as RandomCanadian does believe these articles should be deleted it doesn't apply here. BilledMammal (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed. The POINT being made is that RandomCanadian wants drastic changes to NSPORT, seemingly almost to the point of removing NSPORT as an SNG altogether; thus we have the mass bundled AfD pushing GNG as one of the reasons. The reason given in the initial PROD doesn't even address under which policy the article was nominated.
  I agree that this mass creation of essentially identical microstubs was inappropriate, but mass deletion shouldn't be the answer. I know I said I was recusing myself from !voting, but I rescind my recusal and will be !voting below. However, I will not !vote to keep them. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not a fan of bundled AfDs and have often voted to keep on procedural grounds when disparate people are bundled. But this one? This is probably as valid a bundled AfD as one can get: all 19 articles created on the same day (the same hour actually); all 19 articles dealing with 20th century Danish footballers named Nielsen; all 19 article of the same length and depth; all 19 articles citing the same databases; all 19 articles virtually identical (tweaking only minor details). Frankly, it seems that many in the FOOTY project will use whatever arguments are available to save these microstubs ... actually, I take that back, as there is actually one important argument that I don't hear being made, i.e., a showing of some actual SIGCOV. This is the kind of group response that tempts me to vote "Support" on Subproposal 3 and get rid of NFOOTY altogether. Cbl62 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. All the subjects appear to meet WP:NFOOTY, at least on the surface. I disapprove of the mass-creation of so many nearly identical microstubs, but I also disagree with the mass deletion of all of them. Move them into Draft – where they should have been created initially – to provide an opportunity for expansion and improvement. If they cannot be improved within a reasonable time period as determined by the standards at WP:AFC, then they can be deleted outright. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Flemming Nielsen (footballer, born 1954), which has been expanded a bit, unless evidence can be provided that any of rest of them meet the GNG. We do not need database entries masquerading as biographical "articles" that completely lack references to coverage in secondary sources. Time to put a stop to this. Cullen328 (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, procedurally oppose the nomination of all of these, instead of case by case.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ortizesp: What do you need to take on a case by case basis? Is Leo Nielsen (19 February 1918 – 13 June 1981) was a Danish footballer.[1] He played in one match for the Denmark national football team in 1946.[2] so radically different from Kaj Nielsen (23 December 1926 – 2 September 2002) was a Danish footballer.[1] He played in three matches for the Denmark national football team from 1952 to 1953.[2] that we need to have two different discussions on them? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep these need to be evaluated individually or this will become a clusterfuck. No prejudice against individual AfDs on all of these articles where we can properly evaluate this as I seriously doubt WP:BEFORE has been or even can be done in an AfD like this. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles for Deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP. "Should be deleted until such time somebody can actually bother to do the actual legwork and find proper sources for it" in the nomination suggests that the OP did not carry out a WP:BEFORE search on all articles. NemesisAT (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:DEL-REASON, violation of WP:NOT is reason to delete an article. If you want to keep these database entries in article space you either need to find coverage (if it exists), or remove WP:NOTDATABASE from WP:NOT. BilledMammal (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:DEL-REASON states "subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page". This requires a WP:BEFORE, which I doubt has been carried out for all 19 (!!) pages proposed for deletion here. NemesisAT (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:BEFORE doesn't apply here; it states "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" - in this case, the main concern is the violation of WP:NOT. And if correcting the WP:NOT violations is practical, then please demonstrate it - I will remove my support for deleting any article where it has been possible to correct the violation - at the moment, this only applies to Flemming Nielsen (footballer, born 1954). BilledMammal (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @Nemesis: How much do you consider is "practical" in attempting to fix 19 near-identical WP:NOTDATABASE entries which were created at a pace of one every 2 or 3 minutes? When I create (or improve) an article, I look for the sources before doing so. Here, even the article creator couldn't be arsed to do so, and his articles are clear WP:NOT violations. Even if I wanted to look for them (despite having absolutely no obligation to do so here), "Nielsen" is apparently a very common Danish name and looking for many of these actually yields plenty of other, actually notable footballers (to take as an obvious example, Poul Nielsen is also the name of the joint all-time best goalscorer for the Danish national time...). So, even if I had to, no, it is not a problem which can be resolved under any reasonable definition of "practical". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All articles have at least 2 RS, all have played at least one game for the Danish national team Josey Wales^Parley 17:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseywales1961: All the articles have exactly the same sources (which are very inclusive and indiscriminate databases, thus not very convincing); and "played at least one game for the Danish national team" does not grant footballers a superpower to ignore WP:NOT (or any other policy or guideline). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I somehow doubt that those claiming that it's impossible to discuss this many articles at once would actually be willing to discuss each article individually with much more depth than "keep per NSPORTS". Conveniently, these persons all vanish and refuse to talk any further when it's pointed out to them how these articles are all essentially the same: stubs referencing the same pair of databases, created minutes apart from each other, with zero signifcant coverage. Discussing the same thing 5 (or 19?) times over is plainly a waste of time, and a single bundled nomination is fully justified. Avilich (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep RandomCanadian should know not to be this stupid and that biographies should be nominated individually. Govvy (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: I think you should rephrase that. BilledMammal (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: Why? It's a stupid mistake to bundle multiple biographies together and the nominator knows this. It's not a true grouping as people have unique lives. He should send these articles separately to AfD. Govvy (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not WP:CIVIL. Also, it's an appropriate grouping, as discussed above. BilledMammal (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I normally don't reply to personal attacks, but I'll note that no reasoning has been provided to support the premise made that "biographies should [implied: always] be nominated individually", nor has any reasoning been provided to attempt to counter the argument why this grouping is entirely appropriate. In short, it is an evidence-less statement, and can't even be classified as some form of fallacy... Although, given the number of people who have made the exact same type of comment, one could call it an attempt at proof by assertion. Or, more crudely, a plain and blatant filibuster based on procedural nonsense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft to wikipedia's version of civility, people take that way too seriously, and besides, the nomination hasn't looked at how, when and why these people made it into the Danish national team. They played club football too, the articles are missing so much information. Let's take one of these articles to start with John Nielsen (footballer, born 1911) Lets ask, how did he make it to the national scene for the country? Well, he played club football as well.

(From the source in the article and not added)

Club career

07/1941 - 06/1944 - BK Fremad Amager

07/1934 - 06/1941 - KB København

07/1930 - 06/1934 - BK Fremad Amager

[1] Tells us he had a club career, and that should be a loop to look for newspaper articles at the top for his time at the clubs he played for. However, this is also WW2, so what did he do during the war years? Has anyone bother to look that up. Or even tried? I am sorry, but again I truly believe on my single assessment on one article that there is missing information to work with. And that's my view of one article. It's down to each article assessment, not a total. The bundle is based on the national caps and not the true content which can be provided. Hence, how, and why. Simple questions to look for, to throw these articles under the bus without research is blind nominations and I hate that. Hence, it's a stupid nomination. Govvy (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a valid argument. However, it is also entirely irrelevant, as the nomination here is not made on the basis of notability, but on the clear and blatant failure of WP:NOTDATABASE, as these are all clearly zero-effort articles created from copy-pasting from a database. It is not true that sports articles should get immunity from deletion, and it is even less true that I should bother to go spend hours digging through old danish newspapers when the creator literally spent seconds to create them. Insisting otherwise only shows how nominating each of these individually would make it even worse and require even more bureaucracy to clean-up the results from a few thoughtless actions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:NOT nomination; it is in full compliance with process. All that will happen if these articles are procedurally kept is the next day there will be eighteen separate nominations, and unless you are planning to !vote "Keep, meets WP:NFOOTY" in each of them they will be deleted, and the only difference will be that more time will have been wasted. BilledMammal (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Odd argument to use WP:NOTDATABASE, how is the information indiscriminate? Sadly the truth is that wikipedia is part database of information. The information on those articles are all clear and precise, this person played for the national team of this country. Do you have something against stub articles? Govvy (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the only sources which mention something are databases, it's hard to argue that these articles are anything but database entries masquerading as encyclopedic articles. Encyclopedias provide summaries of knowledge, they provide context for the data presented, they provide relevant background information. Much more than simple one-liners. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate one-liners created in a robot-like fashion. "Has played professional football" is not a magic keyword that somehow exempts any subject from that very basic requirement. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDATABASE applies because articles sourced entirely to databases cannot be anything other than a database entry; they cannot have encyclopedic value, as they lack explanations referenced to independent sources. BilledMammal (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

procedural keep as this type of bundling is entirely inappropriate. Re-nominate separately. This discussion is already a clusterfuck and it's been about 36 hours. Giant Snowman 11:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy. SN54129 14:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete all - Bundling is appropriate given their creation in a spree using the same (bad) sourcing. No objection to recreation with actual sourcing. FOARP (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All They meet NFOOTY with international appearances. The articles do need improving, however. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting NFOOTY is not a valid reason to keep articles which fail WP:NOT. Nor does meeting NFOOTY give sportspersons the magical superpower to ignore any and all other requirements of Wikipedia policy. RandomCanadian (talk /

contribs) 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, NFOOTY states that footballers are considered notable if the Nielsens have played in "any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA." which they have, so it in fact is a valid reason. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify all - this is a complete mess and I'm not opposed to keeping on procedural grounds either. If any action should be taken at all then move all of them to draft space to give time to find proper sources and to add meaningful content. All comfortably pass WP:NFOOTBALL so the potential for expansion is there. Articles need improving but outright deletion seems inappropriate. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- NFOOTY isn't a reliable predictor that there are sources that would support the expansion of any of these articles. BilledMammal (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there isn't any harm in giving the editors that do believe sources exist that could be used to improve the article the chance to do so in draft space? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is none; I just disagreed with the word "potential"; possibility would have been more accurate. However, given how little content is in these articles, I don't believe that they will be useful for editors seeking to write an article about one of these players. BilledMammal (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is none? Ye of little faith, kb.dk has a large archive of stuff to go through for the Danish reader. It's hard work when I don't know a word of Danish. Offline sources for the win! Govvy (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is none referred to the harm, not the coverage. As for that archive, it is only internet archives. If there is coverage of these individuals, it won't be in those archives - see my previous comment for the newspaper archive. BilledMammal (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify all - I struggle with bundled AfDs like this because it's difficult to evaluate the sources to determine if WP:GNG is met on all of them. However, in this case, the sources are almost certainly offline (where I lack the access and language skill to evaluate them properly), so it is just an impossible task to look into GNG compliance unless someone can post the sources for us. As such, pushing these to draft space gives that someone the opportunity to make a case for them passing the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep the bundling of bios was already inappropriate under WP:BUNDLE, but to then also change the pages being proposed for deletion in the middle of the discussion? Definitely think these need to be re-proposed and evaluated on their merits individually. Jay eyem (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jay eyem, Ortizesp, Govvy, and GiantSnowman: To be clear, you have no issue with each of these being re-nominated individually the day after they are closed, despite the fact that it appears clear they will all be deleted in such a discussion, and the only effect will be to waste everyone's time? BilledMammal (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would probably have issue, I think they should all be kept individually anyways.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then make the argument for that here, rather than !voting procedural keep. Because at the moment, they fail WP:GNG and more importantly, WP:NOT, and cannot reasonably be kept. BilledMammal (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Waste everybody's time? You mean like inappropriately bundling several bios together in the first place, then nominating additional articles DURING a discussion is not already wasting everybody's time? How about accusing someone of canvassing because they notified the relevant WikiProject, something the page explicitly says is acceptable? That seems like a waste of everybody's time. As is the bad faith accusation that WP:FOOTY is a partisan group. Not that time really matters here because there is no deadline and specifically we should not rush to delete anything. So slow your roll and stop acting like the outcome is predetermined. Jay eyem (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Jay eyem: When you say "no rush", do you also mean "no rush to copy-paste articles from databases"? The creator of these is probably the most egregious offender in that aspect. If nobody is willing to put time into improving those articles, and instead people are going to insist on procedural nonsense filibustering, that quite rightly justifies that those articles shouldn't have been created in the first place. Wikipedia is not a database, not a directory-like listing of context-less entries, and most importantly, not a sports fansite. These articles are all exact copy-pastes of each others with details changed. It is simply not true that sportsperson get a magic shield from meeting inclusion requirements the moment they're created, and it is absolutely infuriating that people are seemingly fine with them when every other single article on the encyclopedia requires people to put time and effort into it. If this were absolutely any freakin other subject, those articles, which are blatant and unambiguous WP:NOT violations, would long have been deleted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Probably because it was wildly inappropriate to bundle these in the first place, and even more inappropriate to add additional articles AFTER the discussion was already underway. WP:MULTIAFD makes it pretty clear that there are four categories of articles that may be bundled: 1. A group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles. This is clearly not the case here, because they represent different individuals. 2. A group of hoax articles by the same editor. These do not appear to be hoaxes by any reasonable definition. 3. A group of spam articles by the same editor. While I find the creation of these articles to be premature and lacking in content, the articles clearly are not spam. And 4. A series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products. This is clearly not applicable in any shape or form. Additionally, the page states that for the avoidance of doubt, bundling should not be used to form consensus around policy decisions such as "should Wikipedia include this type of article". Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy. If you're unsure, don't bundle it. As you are fully aware there is a current discussion (also, far from a consensus) regarding this issue, so if anything this bundled nomination should have taken place AFTER the conclusion of that discussion. And while you can add additional articles to a nomination after the first post, MULTIAFD also states that for the sake of clarity, debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate, ideally before any substantive discussion. Except there was already substantive discussion when those were added to the nomination! And honestly? My personal opinion would be to move all of them to the draft space. Kind of like this recent AfD which was just a few months ago. The difference here is that the nomination here is really truly a trainwreck, especially since this has that massive ongoing discussion at the village pump. Sometimes it's ok to ignore the rules, but I really don't think this is one of those times. Jay eyem (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        All those articles have exactly the same bloody content: $playerName ($dateOfBirth – $dateOfDeath) was a Danish footballer.[1] He played in $numberOfMatches for the Denmark national football team (from/during/in) $timePeriod.[2]; under slightly different titles. Now if like everybody else you're going to try some silly procedural obstructionism, that's your own choice. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        You need to calm the hell down. These are not "slightly" different titles, these are entirely different individuals who should all be evaluated on their own merits. So yes, they should have been nominated individually. I think you have become way too involved in this discussion if you feel the need to badger all the people that disagree with you. And if you are so concerned with people who are legitimately concerned about how poorly thought out this AfD was, then maybe you should have followed procedure in the first place. Jay eyem (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        These articles have been done at the same time and are "fill-in-the-blanks" variations. You are asking @RandomCanadian: to delete each one individually. They were created in mass, should they be discussed that way? Isn't this like throwing stuff on the wall and seeing what sticks? With other editors' time cleaning up? ReTeam (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll just defer to SuperJew's earlier quote on the matter at hand: The question for AfD is "is this topic notable". The question you're asking is "is this a well-written article". This seems to be missing from the conversation even though it is the whole point of AfD. Far too much of the argument for deletion has been focused on the poor quality of the articles and not focused on notability, for which players should be evaluated individually. Otherwise you might as well include every single football stub in existence for this AfD (which seems to be much of the purpose of the ongoing village pump discussion). Honestly, I don't think the proposal for deletion would be getting nearly as much pushback if they were just nominated individually, and I don't see what would be so hard about doing that. Bios in particular should be evaluated on their own merits. Jay eyem (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I said previously, I can demonstrate that WP:NFOOTY is partisan, and thus notifying them like was done is votestacking, if that will convince you that the notifications are inappropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I mean feel free to try and prove that. I think it is completely absurd to accuse an entire project of being partisan, but if you're willing to try and convince myself and others then do so. Jay eyem (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep or Draftify Per above, many appear notable. Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --- Løken (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as they lack evidence of notability (as in significant coverage, not some dubious rule that players for national teams are always notable, sources be damned). People can always recreate them if and when significant coverage is found. Until then, very little is lost by deleting these, it's not as if by reading these "articles" you get an actual attempt at a basic biography of these people, but instead you get a single element only. And on a procedural note, if they can be created in batch, they can be deleted in batch. Fram (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~DELETE ALL~~ ~~Delete the first five~~ ~~Redirect per @Joseph2302:~~ Don't keep (I didn't mean to be shouting on the first one) I think that @Lugnuts: makes @RandomCanadian:'s point pretty clearly here: [2]. I want to emphasize "I was simply going through a list of international footballers with no articles". This indicates to me a belief that any Danish footballer who has ever played in even one game (three of the first five) deserves an article because sometime in the future somebody may be bored enough to improve one. I think that a potential list is being turned into a flood of near-useless stubs.

My impression, by looking at their userpage, is that this editor may count articles created simply because of the count, not because of their content or potential. AGF whatever, this is what they blast all over their user page, the importance of their count.

Now I imagine we will go back to the process and pretend that any one of these articles (I only checked the first five) has any potential value as an article instead of as part of a list. This is going back to 2005-2010 when people were making up articles just trying to get Wikipedia going. It's going now, there are too many stubs left over from then, we don't need to actively create them for possible potential any more. ReTeam (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can you vote to delete all in good faith when you "only checked the first five"? That to me signals the need for these to be nominated individually and not all at the same time. NemesisAT (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder how someone with only a few dozen edits over a decade, including only three or four edits in the past five years, would stumble across my talkpage and/or this AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I have corrected my post to your liking? Process. How can you possibly use my opinion as a reason to assume there are other articles that may have value? That doesn't follow.

Your question is fair, this is a lost then later found account that I am using to keep this garbage away from my real content. Despite your ego I don't know anyone here, I was wandering around Denmark and noticed this. Of course I checked your talk page trying to understand your motive, which I think I do. ReTeam (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ReTeam: Please have another look given the concerns with redirect noted below. I think "soft delete" (which allows for recreation with better sourcing) or "draftify" are the better outcomes here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: I can't comment because I don't know the proceedure. I object to these being thrown up as stub articles but don't know/care what happens to them. Joseph2302 seemed to have a resonable idea, don't throw them out, put them somewhere, but I have no idea where/how. Sorry. ReTeam (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

"Draftify" would move the articles to draft space where they would have time to be developed further. Cbl62 (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can read Wikipedia:Drafts if you are not familiar, I didn't know what it meant when I first saw it myself. Jay eyem (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer if consensus is not to keep these articles, then redirecting to List of Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps) would seem like a good WP:ATD. I would strongly support redirecting over deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further note to closer. IMO redirects are not the best outcome in cases such as "Allan Nielsen (footballer, born 1953)" or "John Nielsen (footballer, born 1911)", as these are not natural search terms. As for "Hugo Nielsen", I submit that the name is simply too common (a search turns up several notable or semi-notable persons with the name Hugo Nielsen and/or the other common Scandinavian variants, Neilsen/Nielson/Neilson/Nilsson) to redirect such a common search term to the list of Danish football players. I voted to "soft delete" but believe "draftify" is also a reasonable outcome. Either of these options permit subsequent efforts to create actual encyclopedic content on any of these players who may actually prove to be notable. Cbl62 (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all It is high time we did something substantial to stop the flooding of Wikipedia with sub-stubs on non-notable sportspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question @ReTeam: I am curious, how did you come to know about this AfD? Govvy (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[3] @ 0230 X pain/boredom. ReTeam (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/Keep : they meet WP:NFOOTY despite being insufficiently developed and poorly sourced, hence moving them to a draft space could be a solution. There _are_ plenty of offline sources, unfortunately all outside the reach of a narrow Google Search and/or located behind (pay)walls. Take a quick closer look at for instance John Nielsen (footballer, born 1911), who is highlighted earlier in the discussion. Nielsen is credited with two national appearances (Nordic Championship) at the Danish Football Association own archive (more authoritative than worldfootball.net), his footballing career (including a photo) is detailed on page 65 of the book Landsholdets 681 profiler fra 1908 til i dag (also included in the book Landsholdenes 2198 Spillerprofiler - fra Krølben til Krøldrup), his 1939-40 national league championship title is mentioned on page 23 of Danske fodboldmestre 1929-1990 : den gamle 1. division før Superligaen (besides page 95 of Kjøbenhavns Boldklub 1876-1951 - gennem 75 Aar), he has several league game references as a regular in his level 1 clubs' line-ups, which can be verified using the newspaper archives (excluding Politiken, Ekstra Bladet etc.) at Mediestream KB.dk besides being mentioned in sports magazines of the era such as Idrætsbladet (accessible onsite at the royal library/KB). Also he is credited with at least one cup final appearance (the 1933 KBUs Pokalturnering), mentioned on page 21 in the anniversary book Fremad Amager 1910-1985 (besides page 14 in the book Boldklubben Fremad Amager 1910-1935). Froztbyte (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the detailed search Froztbyte. This further emphasises why this AfD should be closed as a procedual keep and if wanted discussion should be done on an individual case-per-case basis. --SuperJew (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of what Froztbyte mentions sounds like SIGCOV. Rather, it all sounds like brief mentions. Cbl62 (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bundling a score of footballers, many from near a century ago, many of which meet NFOOTBALL? List separately if necessary, and as above, some meet GNG. This is a terrible nomination. Nfitz (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of them meet WP:NOT; and none of them meet GNG as the sources are trivial mentions... As for meeting NFOOTBALL, that has no bearing whatsoever on meeting (or failing to meet) NOT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of them meet WP:NOT? I'm not sure what side you are arguing. I'd think all articles in Wikipedia should not meet NOT. Nfitz (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Man's Land, Falkland Islands[edit]

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

While this place does seem to exist, there is nothing indicating that it meets notability guidelines. Searching for '"no man's land" falkland' and '"tierra de nadie" malvinas' doesn't return any results for reliable sources (beside a book by the name "Tierra de nadie", which doesn't seem to be about the location) ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I haven't found anything to support the truth of this article at all. There's a novel, that post-dates this article by about 10 years, and that's it. The article cites no sources, and there are apparently no sources to be found. This, and the text in Wickham Heights, are unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has no sources and all the information of the article was copied and pasted from https://everything.explained.today/No_Man%27s_Land%2C_Falkland_Islands/.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👻👻) 19:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, that website is clearly a mirror of this article, not the other way around. Still no sign of notability. Reywas92^Talk 20:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had looked at this as part of the December 2006 unreferenced articles clean-up, it probably does exist but there's just no coverage of it. FOARP (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miangul Mahmud Aurangzeb[edit]

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

WP:NACADEMIC is not met with. Notability is not inherited either. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article had many reliable and journal references. They were from 2014, and only needed to be fixed and updated which I did. In my view Passes WP:NACADEMIC now. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm having trouble finding something qualifying for WP:NACADEMIC. For example, he's a distinguished life member of the World Association of Laparoscopic Surgeons, but every member I clicked on at [4] has the same "honor" (and life membership costs $100), so that doesn't meet criteria 2 or 3. He's the dean, but not of a major institution, so that doesn't meet criterion 6. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Khyber Medical College is part of the larger Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, Pakistan which is a major recognized university by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (a reference is also included showing this by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan). Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say it's a "major" university? And anyway, he's not the president of Khyber Medical University so C6 doesn't apply regardless of whether it's major. JoelleJay (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dean is not the highest post of S. Asian universities. So whether or not Khyber Medical University is a major institution is irrelevant. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not seeing the exceptional citations necessary to meet C1 (or other criteria). Scopus only has 63 total for him, unless he uses a different spelling of "Aurangzeb" sometimes. JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of WP:NPROF C1, dean is insufficient for WP:NPROF C6, and little sign of other criteria. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above, clearly not notable per WP:NPROF. --hroest 19:17, 17 February 2022 (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. The nominator had requested speedy deletion of the nomination, which I initially declined. However, he has since confirmed that this nomination was an error (and thus I should have speedily deleted it, or at least closed it), so there's no need to keep it open any longer; nobody else has supported deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb[edit]

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

There is no claim to notability. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb is a Justice on the Islamabad High Court which has been verified with a reference to a major Pakistani new journal. That is something which does not need to be done more than once when combined with the reference to his biography on the court website. There is a feature on Wikipedia which helps to determine notability and it looks like this. What you should do is click on news and scholar the next time you want to question notability.

Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb

edits since nomination)

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

RichardBond (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 12 February 2022 (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 Bendigo#Culture and events. ✗plicit 00:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nimbus Rooftop Bar[edit]

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

As argued by User:Bonewah in response to a Third opinion, this article does not seem to meet the notability criteria. The bar was opened in 2019, and has been discussed in local press and in more routine reviews that do not help establish notability per WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS. Femke (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Femke (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Femke (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bendigo#Culture and events (where it's mentioned) as an alternative to deletion. I would prefer, however, that in doing so, the page's history is preserved as it seems likely to become more notable in future and I'd hate for the work I'd put in to go to waste. I created the article believing it held notability, but I see now any notability it does have is bare-bones at best, having understood the arguments put forward by both you and Bonewah. Sean Stephens (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems reasonable. I think the chances are small this will become notable soon, but it may be a plausible search term. Femke (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bendigo#Culture and events. Gets only one passing mention in The Age, the subject's state's major press, so it is hard to see how N can be established, but the subject is relatively unique in its context so is a possible search term. Aoziwe (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jagran Institute of Communication and Management[edit]

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

Non-notable (and defunct) private education provider. PepperBeast (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. 2 passing mentions in gnews. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches find a couple of routine listings but nothing to verify the partnership claim in the article or otherwise to demonstrate WP:NCORP / WP:GNG notability. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jang and Kev[edit]

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

Non-notable photography business. PepperBeast (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jayakrishna Dikshitar[edit]

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

Non-notable religious figure, I think. Article appears to be promotional. PepperBeast (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 12 February 2022 (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 00:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ojos Rojos[edit]

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

Non-notable band PepperBeast (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 12 February 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Testify (band)[edit]

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

Only a single affiliated source given. WP:BEFORE finds nothing better - just social media and a tribute act. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if news exists, it's hard to find due to the common word in the band name. We need more citations. Chelokabob (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2022 (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 per consensus, lack of notability. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Swanner[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. All sources are own web-site or affiliated or marketing sites. Nothing indicates notability. WP:BEFORE reveals nothing better - more of the same plus social media. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm also concerned that the article author is closely affiliated with the subject. The headshot photo was uploaded by the article author – 113andathird (talk · contribs) – as "own work", which appears to be true; reverse image search reveals nothing. The author has been tagged multiple times to no avail, including on the article talk page. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 14:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm afraid Testify (Christian band) should be deleted as well but I'll wait for this AfD to close before nominating his band. Pichpich (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. JSFarman (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Notability Guidelines. Brent Swanner has two major label recordings and is made notable by Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines for music and musicians 113andathird (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only see CD Baby on his discography; what label are you referring to? JSFarman (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up CD Baby on Wikipedia. CD Baby calls themselves the anti-label but they are actually a huge label that " offers digital music distribution, worldwide publishing rights administration, monetization of music use on social video platforms, sync licensing, music marketing, online advertising, cover song licensing, and physical distribution and order fulfillment for CDs and vinyl records. By opting into their online distribution service, artists can authorize CD Baby to act on their behalf to submit music for sale to online retailers such as Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora Radio, and 150+ other streaming services". That's what a label does. CD Baby represents a lot of notable artist. 113andathird (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They actually do more than most major labels! But CD Baby isn't a label; they are a service provider.

I just checked out your user page and discovered that you are new to Wikipedia. The notability criteria can be confusing. I'd be happy to help you learn your way around if you're interested. Just leave a message on my talk page. JSFarman (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notable artists that work with CD Baby are such a rare occurrence that there's actually a short list of them in the article CD Baby! In any case, the WP:GNG problem isn't resolved by his collaboration with CD Baby. Pichpich (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I stand corrected. Should I delete CD Baby from the Discography? But I'm not giving up on this and I am trying to get this right. Thank you all for your suggestions. 113andathird (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since this person lacks significant coverage. Pikavoom ^Talk 07:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to draftify the article. There may be offline sources that 113andathird can use; they just need some help to find them. Any objections? JSFarman (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time before nominating this looking for better sources but I could find none. While it may be possible that an editor within the local geographic area may be able to find print material not available on line, that does seem a little unlikely. My own view is that Draftifying will just delay the inevitable by about 6 months Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did too but I only searched via Google, where I found nothing. There are offline references via ProQuest that are unlikely to save this article but will impact the article on the band - ("Meeting people where they're hurting is ministry of Testify" Griffin, Pam.McClatchy - Tribune Business News; Washington [Washington]. 05 Aug ; 2006: 1. "Southern gospel sound uplifts its audience" Haag, Diane.The Times; Shreveport, La. [Shreveport, La]. 19 June 2006: D.1.") I haven't had a chance to check NewsBank or NewspaperARCHIVE yet but I suspect more coverage will exist. I don't consider deletion inevitable (although likely) and I think we should give a new editor the benefit of the doubt. JSFarman (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found two more articles that cover Testify in-depth, but Swanner is only mentioned. I no longer think draftifying is a solid option, but I hope that 113andathird will add to the Testify article if it's kept and continue to contribute to Wikipedia. JSFarman (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now that I understand things better around here, I agree that Brent Swanner is not a stand alone article. But really believe Testify (Christian band) is. May I suggest a re-direct and/or a merger of Brent Swanner to Testify? 113andathird (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kala Doriya[edit]

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

Moved to mainspace for the second time, already draftified once, whcih means it would be move warring to move it back.

Fails WP:GNG, is WP:TOOSOON Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails general notability and television notability. This is a future television series, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. An article should speak for itself, but this article provides no indication of why the future show is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON, needs significant improvement to show it meets WP:GNG, highlighted several reviews once broadcast would be most helpful. Ravensfire (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2022 (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 Aleida Guevara. ✗plicit 14:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chavez, Venezuela, and the New Latin America[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK, the article was created without sources in 2007 and ever since the book appears to have failed to gain any notability at all. NoonIcarus (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could be merged to an author article, as most coverage I can find of the book (admittedly hard, since all elements of the title are popular and related in general) talks about her, a doctor, it seems. Kingsif (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aleida Guevara. I found one review, which isn't enough for WP:NBOOK; there might be more out there but since this is a such a brief stub that no one is working on, no harm in redirecting it to her article really. I've added a heading on her article for the book, which was mentioned in the lead but not the body of the article, so we won't lose any content with a redirect either. -- asilvering (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Russell (software engineer)[edit]

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

Software developer doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO- lacks in-depth coverage in independent (e.g. non-interview) sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find his name and sometimes a short quote in news articles about software he has worked on, but all of these are brief and none are "in depth". Lamona (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find enough coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudian[edit]

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

Contested prod; fails WP:CORPDEPTH (see arguments in WP:SERIESA). All sources are either or both of PR or routine announcements. FalconK (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Was refund requested by an IP at Special:Diff/1069957180. While the name sounds great, and in my mind sounds vaguely sort-of-close to some other coompany the product does not what I'd expect to see for notability, that's not to say there's anything wrong with it. Looked up the Register reference and seemed to fail verifcation so someone would have to do a significant turn around to rescue this, and a incompetent CITEBOMB timewaster wouldn't be appreciated either. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of additional content added in the past 24 hours.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bradford[edit]

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

Fails WP:N due to lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. Relies heavily on primary sources and trivial mentions. Most secondary sources are from Sheffield Star and other local news; minor local media coverage doesn't meet the threshold for notability (WP:SIGCOV). Dead links excluded, he is the subject of only three secondary sources cited. 25% of sources are about his father. Another 25% of sources barely mention him (WP:TRIVIALMENTION). In total, half the cited sources aren't about him; most mention him in only a single sentence and two make no mention of him at all. His YouTube page and organizations with which he was involved are cited; as primary sources, they can't be used to establish notability (WP:GNG). Flagged as a possible WP:COI because the article may have been written by Adam Bradford himself; it was created by "Abradford2014" and is their sole contribution to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Adbradford2014). Inclusion of personal information (such as date of birth, where he grew up, education) that doesn't seem to be publicly available bolsters the idea that this article was written by the subject himself or somebody close to him.JMB1980 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional autobiography. It looks like most reliable sourcing has to do with Bradford's father and not Bradford himself. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sorry, because he seems a good guy, who's done good things despite disadvantages. But he certainly doesn't meet any standards of notability as an entrepreneur or businessman. His record in Companies house shows that he's been associated with a number of businesses that appeared, and then disappeared without even filing a single set of accounts; for example BetProtect Ltd, which was incorporated with £2 and voluntarily struck off less than 2 years later, ABA UK holdings which has assets of less than £11K and no employees, and Adamstart Global, which started with £2 and closed in under a year. Google finds loads of stuff about him, but it's all interviews. Although his aims are national or global, most of the reporting is local to Sheffield, which suggests lack of wider impact. Things like the BBC NewsBeat article suggest notability but are entirely written by him - and we can't have an article that's supported only by the subject's own writings, with no secondary sources! The Enterprising Child book is also a bit of a dubious source of notability; he didn't write it, and it doesn't look like a best-seller, judging by Amazon (perhaps someone with the book can comment on whether it discusses him in depth). I can't see how we can write anything independent about him, given the sources available, so I can't see how we can have a good article. Elemimele (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I see this source gives him some coverage but this is an interview. Confusing a bit, but this subject is clearly promotional. Need to go a through look-up before I !Vote. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 22:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I should point out that first source is about his father as much as it is about him, and excessive focus on his father is already an issue with this article and its sources. The second is in his own words, making it a primary source and ineligible to establish notability.JMB1980 (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see only one resource actually about him, and that is the first one listed in the article. All of the later sources that I could reach are mentions. However, I found that he has written numerous articles for local (Yorkshire) newspapers and at least one for the Guardian. These are mostly short articles about his experience with gambling:

"Adam Bradford: Please don't abuse me or my family for wanting tougher gambling laws." Star (Sheffield) [Sheffield, England], 27 Aug. 2018. Gale OneFile: News, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A551953221/STND?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=518708ff. Accessed 13 Feb. 2022.

"Keep gaming free of addictive add-ons to avoid another gambling epidemic -- Yorkshire campaigner Adam Bradford." Yorkshire Post [Leeds, England], 29 Aug. 2019. Gale OneFile: News, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A597843359/STND?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=dc741112. Accessed 13 Feb. 2022.

I don't think these are enough for general notability nor for author. He is no doubt a campaigner against gambling, but seems not to have yet made his mark. Lamona (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gma1tv[edit]

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

The article claims "He has been a part of most big productions that have taken place in Zimbabwe since 2018." But there are no sources for that. Or independent sources at all for that matter. I was unable to find significant coverage. Pikavoom ^Talk 09:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any independent coverage. The page creator has also withdrawn the claim to notability which is quite telling Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:52, 12 February 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Scott[edit]

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

Contested PROD: "he managed a professional club playing in the professional 2nd tier of Scottish football (at the time)" Queen of the South were part-time until 2007 according to their own website "Chairman Davie Rae made the decision that the club would move to full time football at the start of the 2007/08 season". In any case the lack of SIGCOV denotes a GNG failure. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 12 February 2022 (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 per consensus. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Überwachungsgeschwader[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources The Banner talk 12:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment here are some possible sources: (1) das Neue Zuercher Zeitung (I have genuinely no idea who this newspaper is), "Das Schweizer Überwachungsgeschwader" [5], see also an in-depth journal article by Heinrich Horber archived at [6]. The article already contains a couple of books in its external links; Hanspeter Ruckli's book is available second-hand but I don't know if it's in any libraries. It might be a decent source. Elemimele (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Neue Zuercher Zeitung. It's been "neue" for two centuries. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A dearth of sources is not a valid reason for deletion. Other equivalent level units of the Swiss Air Force have articles, so that deletion would be destructive. Already tagged for improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it is, per deletion policy of long standing; but in this instance it's not fully the case. However, it's hard to find this covered in depth, and not as part of another subject, such as the book that I found that discussed the career path options for pilots, listed this as one, and didn't go into much detail. Then there's the overlap with another article. Uncle G (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The poor reader coming to the article might well wonder why the Swiss Air Force needed a unit for overalls. Did they get really dirty? ☺ But Elemimele is right, this is in books, and Napier 2020, p. 259 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNapier2020 (help) provides the comprehensible English language explanation that the article at hand (clearly a not very good translation from de:Überwachungsgeschwader, in fairness) does not. However, the fact that Berufsfliegerkorps largely duplicates this article strongly hints that the two can be covered as one in some way.
- Napier, Michael (2020). "In neutral skies: Switzerland". In Cold War Skies: NATO and Soviet Air Power, 1949–89. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9781472836885.
Uncle G (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MILUNIT #7. Clearly has sources. Print sources are acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a community decision or just a local decision? The Banner talk 10:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:MILUNIT is an essay that explicitly states that any final determination must be made on the basis of WP:GNG. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm unable to assess the sources in detail due to lack of relevant language skills, but the two news articles appear solid based on machine translation. There are also two books listed in the External Links section, which appear to be related based on the titles. At the same time, I'm WP:AGF on the books, and hence "weak keep". -Ljleppan (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. ✗plicit 12:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Father (2022 film)[edit]

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

An upcoming film not yet passes WP:NFILM. DMySon (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:NFF DonaldD23 talk to me 14:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is not yet released and local language film yet to be released. I agree with Donaldd23, it is WP:TOOSOON. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 22:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify so that it could be improved upon and submitted via WP:AFC, as the film is scheduled to be release in March, thus giving a possibility to pass WP:NFF — DaxServer (t · c) 13:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:ATD-I. Notability can be re-evaluated with reviews once the film is released. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infinitesolutions[edit]

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

A sort of "procedural" nomination; PROD declined by author with no explanation (Reason: No indication of why this channel is notable enough for its own article.) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any significant coverage of this Youtube channel. It needs RS to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG

UphillAthlete (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this channel is not notable. Can't find significant coverage about it. GoldenHayato (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, aside from the Lifehacker article that just mention the channel in passing, there is no WP:SIGCOV for the channel, and WP:GNG can't be established. The ABC article covers it more, but I don't think it establishes notability. Also the same reference is used over and over again, only 2 sources are actually used.SunDawn talk 00:27, 13 February 2022 (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, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculate Conception Parochial School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The article has been unsourced since its creation. No WP:RS can be found on Google. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chompy Ace 15:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is un-referenced and all I could find was a trivial article about a couple of students from the school winning a medal. Which doesn't help with notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2022 (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 12:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Valley Christian Academy[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. A quick Google search gave me nothing but a bunch of directory-like sites and the school's website and Facebook page (no WP:RS). —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chompy Ace 15:16, 16 February 2022 (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 procedural keep. No prejudice to immediate separate renominations to discuss the merits of each subject. ✗plicit 12:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Plant[edit]

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

Technically passes NFOOTY due to an FLT appearance, but clearly fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trout for the nominator for this kind of bundling. When arguing 'passes NFOOTBALL but fails GNG' it's better to consider each article separately. Giant Snowman 09:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Happy to withdraw this nomination and relist separately if that's how things are normally done. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics as we have done in other similar AFDs. Giant Snowman 09:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all meet NFOOTBALL. If these are the rare exceptiont that meet NFOOTBALL but should still be deleted, we need to discuss each separately. Nfitz (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in principle, nominate these individually.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Each article should be independently assessed, biographies should never be bundled. Govvy (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - more productive to discuss these separately. Some may pass GNG, some may fail. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all none have the level of significant coverage to justify keeping the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2022 (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 12:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eenasul Fateh[edit]

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

Non notable. Unreliable sources. - AlbeitPK (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AlbeitPK (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AlbeitPK (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There are some reliable sources in Books, which are not used as citations in the article. KEEP, Edit, and cite properly. But it should not be deleted. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 23:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough reliable sources already. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see notability guidelines being meet.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is not satisfied. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We only have unreliable sources and passing mentions. NeverTry4Me's book search does not convince me of the existence of reliable in-depth replacements. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jdcooper (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any scholarly work or anything in the academic domain; fails WP:PROF. per above also fails WP:GNG--Paulstar57 (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not, and seems unable to, pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Cabrils (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2022 (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 12:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaan Kevser-Junior[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer; fails WP:GNG and barely passes WP:NFOOTY, having played for five minutes in just one game that meets the criteria.

See source assessment table for a review of all coverage, either in the article or identifiable through a news search.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/sport/football/crawley-town-snap-up-young-midfielder-3408606	Most content consists of quotes from Crawley		The only independent statements are that he has been training with the club since the start of the 2021-2022 season, and that he has been named as a substitute for a game	✘ No
https://www.crawleytownfc.com/news/2021/october/reds-sign-kaan-kevser-junior/	Published by Crawley			✘ No
https://ajansspor.com/haber/17-yasindaki-turk-oyuncu-hedeflerini-acikladi-584914	Consists entirely of quotes from Kevser-Junior	?	?	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/players/kaan-kevser-junior/793165/			Database	✘ No
https://www.soccerbase.com/players/player.sd?player_id=145212			Database	✘ No
https://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/19628350.crawley-town-sign-promising-midfielder-kaan-kevser-junior/	~ Mostly consists of quotes from Crawley		Only coverage that could count is a single sentence stating "The midfielder has joined the Reds on a two-year deal with an option of a third-year after impressing during training with the club", which is not sufficient	✘ No
https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/player-seals-agreement-to-sign-for-crawley-town/		?	Says little beyond that Kevser-Junior has signed with Crawley, and speculation that he will be "delighted" with this.	✘ No
https://www.newschainonline.com/sport/mens-sport/football/josh-andrews-misses-out-through-injury-as-rochdale-host-crawley-229082		?	Only mention of Kevser-Junior is "New signing Kaan Kevser-Junior could also feature after playing five minutes from the bench in their midweek Papa John’s Trophy game."	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He passes NFOOTY, and there is generally more leniency over GNG for players active in their careers. I would argue the Ajansspor reference contributes towards GNG - the argument made that it is not independent is moot as it's an interview, and its an RS and constitutes SIGCOV. We're probably shy of a second reference which would be nice, but there is consensus for active players to be given more leniency at AfD - see Joakim Balmy, Shinji Yamada, Mikołaj Kwietniewski. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be considered SIGCOV, but what WP:GNG requires is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; an article that consists only of direct quotes is not "independent of the subject". And he passes WP:NFOOTY by playing for five minutes in a single tier four game; it's not a strong argument. BilledMammal (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY, and has an active career in a league that gets significant attention.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NSPORT, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Further, WP:CRYSTAL applies to the prediction that he will receive coverage in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the assessment in the source table. this, this, and this all count as WP:SIGCOV as they are articles that focus on the player. Meets WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The independent coverage for each of those sources can be summarized as:
Two sentences, mostly basic information that is duplicated across each of the articles, is not WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am confused, from what I see that's a very low bar towards WP:NFOOTBALL, I wasn't pass it. I don't really see GNG at this either. More WP:ROUTINE news if anything. Govvy (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per MA. Young player with ongoing career. Giant Snowman 11:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine and non-independent coverage is not the thing passing GNG is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only meets NFOOTBALL, also meets GNG with sources above. Poor nomination. Nfitz (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2022 (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) Mako001 (C) (T) 03:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SNOW. Mako001 (C) (T) 03:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology of disaster[edit]

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

As its maintenance template says, this article has a distinct essay-like tone. Indeed, looking at the talk page, it appears to have been written as some sort of school assignment. The bibliography and further reading sections are composed entirely of theses/white papers, etc. and the subject in general appears to have low notability. Propose deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just Another Cringy Username (talk • contribs) 2022-02-12T07:32:20 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sociology of disaster is a reputable and well-discussed subfield of sociology, which counts Diane Vaughan amongst its ranks. In the wake of the Challenger Disaster, Vaughan published The Challenger Launch Decision, which argued that the normalization of deviance within NASA exacerbated the technical problems and produced the accident. This pioneering book propelled Vaughan on the Columbia Accident Investigation Board following the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, which is extremely unconventional for a sociologist, and speaks volumes about the impact of the subfield on the world at large. It's therefore expected to find it in chapters of sociology textbooks [7], [8], [9]. [10], in books by sociologists, such as Normal Accidents (cited over 1,000 times between 1984 and 2003 [11]), The Challenger Launch Decision, [12], and this one from an Italian sociologist [13]. The field has spawned other subfields or applied subfields, and I am only familiar with the niche field of the sociology of nuclear weapons disasters, so I hope editors from social sciences background can come to fill the gaps I may have on this topic. Pilaz (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sections which actually warranted the tagging with "essay-like" and "tone" warnings back in 2018 have since been removed. The page is sourced to books and journal articles; per Pilaz above, it can be further expanded. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: definitely a notable field - the article is even citing books specifically about it, naming the field itself in their titles. It looks like somebody came by and fixed most of the outstanding problems right before this AfD. I'll clear out a few more of the WP:REFBOMB issues but this looks like a viable stub now. -- asilvering (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I would follow the advice to redirect to Gottfried Fritschel article but that is not in very good shape either. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George J. Fritschel[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability guideline for academics. They didn't receive any awards and did not hold any notable positions. I did find a book they wrote here but it does not seem notable enough for the author to have an article. Wgullyn (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wgullyn (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on his father, who is more clearly notable. I think it's very likely that someone could write a decent article on him or "The Fritschel family" more broadly, but the sources will not be easy to track down as they are 100 years old and in German. I'm personally not inclined to do that kind of digging right now, and no one else has stepped forward to do so in the last ten years either. -- asilvering (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per "I think it's very likely that someone could write a decent article on him" (yes they do, the sources exist in German, and Obit here: https://www.nytimes.com/1941/10/07/archives/george-j-fritschel.html), a stub remains a stub whether someone expands or not. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but "I think someone probably could" is an expression that I think sources probably exist, which is not grounds for an AfD keep, as explained at WP:SOURCESEXIST. That obituary cannot make a solid keep case on its own. If you have the sources, you can name them, add them to the article, and assert that the subject is notable on those grounds. -- asilvering (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not establish that WP:ANYBIO is met. I'm happy to reconsider if more sources are found. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The NY Times obituary is a single sentence, so I'm afraid that doesn't help. I added a few more publications to the article but I don't think they suffice. I can find mentions in G-books: 1) an obit (I believe, from the snippet) [14] 2) a reference to one of his books [15] 3) a reference in a book in German [16]. All are on the subject of theology. None seem to be significantly about him. Lamona (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tourist attractions in Toronto[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. WP:NOTGUIDE — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Wikivoyage, and the article also has zero references. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Culture in Toronto, which is hatnoted right at the top, per WP:CHEAP, which is much more comprehensive and sourced appropriately. Nate • (chatter) 06:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per LaundryPizza03. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirects are cheap but no one is going to search specifically for "List of tourist attractions in Toronto". -- asilvering (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article comes off like an OR filled travel guide to Toronto. In the meantime as another user said, such information would be better on Wikivoyage. So my suggestion is that the article creator contribute what's worth saving in this, if anything, to https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Toronto. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Jallier[edit]

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

French basketball player who debuted in the 2012-2013 season - and this article has been basically untouched since then. It looks like that's the only season he ever played. No WP:N of any kind as far as I can tell. asilvering (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC) My bad there; he looks much more borderline now. So, to the floor: WP:GNG pass or not? -- asilvering (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is still playing, a simple "Alexandre Jallier site:.fr" search on Google turned up several sources. Alvaldi (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's annoying, because I... surely did try google? Even without the .fr restriction I can bring up some of these same articles. I must have typoed? Thanks for adding them. It doesn't look to me like this is a WP:GNG pass because the substantial items here are interviews, so I'll leave the AfD up for now rather than withdraw it so some more sports-familiar editors have a chance to weigh in. -- asilvering (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with the French sources, although I see it is rather borderline. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 12 February 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garima Arora (actress)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. Also, references are just promotional. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of having significant roles to meet NACTOR. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 12 February 2022 (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 Public housing estates on Tsing Yi Island#Easeful Court. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Easeful Court[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RUNOFTHEMILL housing development. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Public housing estates on Tsing Yi Island#Easeful Court per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. This title had existed as a redirect to that section between 2009 and 2022 before GoAheadFan95 (talk · contribs) converted the redirect into an article. I have reviewed the sources and done searches for sources myself and was unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources about Easeful Court (traditional Chinese: 青逸軒; simplified Chinese: 青逸轩) to allow it meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I support a merge since GoAheadFan95 has added material sourced to government websites that is not present in Public housing estates on Tsing Yi Island#Easeful Court.
Cunard (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cascades, Hong Kong. 10:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Public housing estates on Tsing Yi Island#Easeful Court per Cunard's comment. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2022 (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 Public housing estates in Ho Man Tin#Cascades. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cascades, Hong Kong[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RUNOFTHEMILL residential apartment blocks. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Public housing estates in Ho Man Tin#Cascades per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. This title had existed as a redirect to that section between 2009 and 2022 before GoAheadFan95 (talk · contribs) converted the redirect into an article. I have reviewed the sources and done searches for sources myself and was unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources about Cascades, Hong Kong (traditional Chinese: 欣圖軒; simplified Chinese: 欣图轩) to allow it meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I support a merge since GoAheadFan95 has added material sourced to government websites that is not present in Public housing estates in Ho Man Tin#Cascades.
Cunard (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easeful Court. 10:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Public housing estates in Ho Man Tin#Cascades per Cunard's comment. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypso (novel)[edit]

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

Novel is not notable Uwsi (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Robert Rankin (with the history preserved under the redirect)~~, the author, per Wikipedia:Deletion#Alternatives to deletion. I found one source that provided significant coverage about the book:
Wilson, Andrew (1999-07-31). "On the couch with a computer". The Scotsman. p. 11. ProQuest 326792833.
The book review is of two books: "Gateway By Frederik Pohl Millennium, GBP 6.99 Apocalypso By Robert Rankin Corgi, GBP 5.99".
The book review notes:
... Apocalypso is the story of a belated invasion by a sprout-headed alien and the desperate race to prevent the creature from conquering the world.
Of course, a good shaggy dog story is never as simple as that. The book also tells the story of Porrig, a foolish young man who has inherited a very peculiar bookshop from his deceased Uncle Alph. But as he was once Apocalypso The Miraculous, the greatest stage magician of his day, he may not be dead for long.
Rankin stirs his ingredients into a ridiculous souffle and serves up a thoroughly silly book. The jokes don't always work, but his enthusiasm for his material is infectious. Rankin even manages to evoke some real empathy for his hopeless shower of characters as they try to defeat the monster. It's a stroke of luck that the alien is almost as pathetic as the rest of them.
Cunard (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per the ISFDB there are two reviews floating around out there, one from Interzone (magazine) and another from The Zone and Premonitions. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robert Rankin (which is actually a generous solution). I find nothing significant about this book in reviews. Note that there are similar articles for many other of his books. Some have synopses that provide a fair amount of text, but I haven't found any with sources that I would consider sufficient for a separate article. Lamona (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep per the sources found by ReaderofthePack (talk · contribs). Thank you for finding those sources! Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Since Apocalypso has been reviewed in The Scotsman, Interzone and The Zone and Premonitions, it meets Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, has multiple reviews as brought out by editors above. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Love (2008 film)[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM. Nothing found in a BEFORE. One small citation from Elle, but not enough.

PROD was removed when the Elle citation was added. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : not exactly a major film, but it was released in theaters in France, featured some notable actors, has been broadcast several times on prime time on French television and dealt with a topic then seldom depicted, at least in French films. I added a review from Le Monde, which is a major French newspaper. Psychloppos (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No indication that it fails WP:NFILM. It even had a foreign theatrical release. I added a review in Fotogramas, a major film magazine in Spain.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per current reviews. Geschichte (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tourist attractions in Kolar district[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. WP:NOTGUIDE — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. To the extent that this information belongs on any Wikimedia project, it would probably belong on Wikivoyage:Kolar (district) rather than here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: belongs in Wikivoyage as said by Metropolitan90 — DaxServer (t · c) 14:04, 16 February 2022 (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.