< February 18	February 20 >

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 00:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next INpact[edit]

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

I find no coverage applicable to establishing notability. At best, the website is cited in a few places as the source for information related elsewhere. The references in the article are almost exclusively to the website the article is about. There are also no Google hits for the stated parent company, INpact MediaGroup ("inpact mediagroup", "inpact media group"). Largoplazo (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I searched for the former name "pc inpact" as well and found nearly nothing. Largoplazo (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment French article has 4 sources in French, but I can not assess their quality. Anton.bersh (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has five sources, but the first is their own website. The second includes it in one row of a long table of websites. The third source was co-produced by INpact. Based on what I can see of the fourth and fifth—there's a paywall—they may qualify, but they're by the same writer in the same publication, Le Figaro, so I think it counts as one source. Largoplazo (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarification, your reasoning makes sense. I immediately disregarded the first source, but was not sure about the other four. I'll comment "delete" below. Anton.bersh (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per source analysis above. Anton.bersh (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP, I cant find any coverage in reliable sources independent of them whatsoever.Alimovvarsu (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per NOM. No RS for this, fails WP:NCORP. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:42, 21 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!} 05:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nous Foundation[edit]

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

Insufficient depth-of-coverage from reliable sources. TheBigEasyMagazine.com has sigcov, but doesn't appear to be notable. The remaining sources that might qualify as WP:RS either mention the organization in passing or don't mention it at all. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Nola.com article specifically mentions the process by which Louisiana joined the Francophonie, which is sourcing the paragraph's text. Concerning Big Easy Magazine, I found two additional articles from Radio Canada and an interview from Beyond Bourbon Street that I added to the source materials. Overall, the article represents noteworthy organizations in Louisiana involved in language revitalization - deleting the article may hurt the public's visibility of ongoing developments to promote French in that state (Louisiana French being an endangered language). The article can be updated to ensure additional sources and the language can be edited by other users as well. I would recommend not deleting the article. Arizeuo (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per nom, but for clarity, a WP:BEFORE indicates not much coverage other than social media accounts, biz profiles and their own site, press releases (specifically, two), and no literature whatsoever. The dearth of reliable, independent sourcing—the lack of SIGCOV mentioned above—is an immediate WP:NOPAGE-failure. FWIW, also Overall, the article represents noteworthy organizations in Louisiana involved in language revitalization - deleting the article may hurt the public's visibility of ongoing developments to promote French suggests that the intention of the article is pure promotion: this fundamentally flies in the face of policy. SN54129 19:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To address each concern directly. [1] The WP:BEFORE provides an overview of the organization. The models for this description were the following WP pages Swedish Institute and the Finnish Institute in Tallinn. I took the description from the Radio Canada article (ref. source #2), but I did not use any press releases or social media. I updated the description in the article to differentiate the article's description from the organization’s description online. [2] Sources: Regional, national, and international news sources were cited, as well as an academic work on French in North America. There are also major international journalistic outlets cited, including Agence France Presse and Radio Canada. These sources appear to meet Wikipedia’s sourcing requirements. [3] Promotion: The point made was that Louisiana French does not have much material on Wikipedia that covers noteworthy developments since 2000. The present article was intended to rectify this problem and provide objective coverage of a well-known organization in Louisiana that is involved in Louisiana French. What was intended in my comment is that outright deleting pages about contemporary developments for Louisiana French, rather than maybe helping to rewrite them if there are any concerns, can render less visible the endangered language. [4] Continued polishing of the page: Other Wikipedia contributors edited the page prior and made suggested revisions that were taken into account to improve the article. Rather than delete the page at this time, further suggestions can be taken to refine the content. If those revisions are not addressed or are not sufficient, then the page can then be deleted at that time. Arizeuo (talk) 15:41, 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!} 23:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources of article were analyzed by OhNoitsJamie and SN54129 in perfect figure. I absolutely agree with them.Alimovvarsu (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on WP:BASIC, there appear to be a variety of sources. I am familiar with Louisiana-based newspapers like The Times-Picayune/The Advocate (Nola.com) as well as Big Easy Magazine that are reputable sources (e.g., verifiable reliable sources). Further information could be added from the sources listed. Overall, this organization is well known, and I would recommend keeping it and adding further information. Parisnola (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)— Parisnola (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Parisnola (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Arizeuo (talk · contribs). [reply]
- The above comment was made by a sock of the previous keep voter; both accounts are now indef blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:05, 21 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} 21:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPX Capital[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. Routine coverage, press-releases and PR. scope_creep^Talk 23:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. scope_creep^Talk 23:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and South Korea. Isabelle ^🔔 23:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This AFC acceptance was erroneous. It should have been declined as an advert and as failing WP:NCORP. Since it is now here at AfD it needs to be deleted. The references are churnalism and the organisation's own web site. The article smells like UPE. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable UPE. Sources 1 and 2 are press releases, source 3 is primary, 4 and 5 have no identifiable author but the websites offer paid pieces. 6 is reliable, but 7 is user-generated. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 10:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An advertisement, sourced to advertisements. Should have been speedied, not accepted, not redraftified; certainly should not have been moved back into mainspace. Delete unless fundamentally rewritten to be an encyclopedia article, regardless of whatever other glorified advertisements are found to source it. —Cryptic 10:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article by a new editor who is seeking to create articles on this and associated companies and individuals associated with the company. The article describes the company and its transactional history without indicating what it has accomplished to be of encyclopaedic note. The references provided predominantly fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH, aside perhaps from the profile piece on a Seoulz start-up website. Searches also find a podcast about work-life balance featuring one of the firm's people, but I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Cryptic. The page qualifies for speedy deletion as spam. The acceptance as an article for creation was wrong, the moving back to draft space was dubious, and the moving back to mainspace by an administrator was way out. (Wbm1058 gave as the reason for returning to mainspace the fact that it had been accepted as an article for creation, as though the opinion of one editor who decides to do that, no matter how reasonably or unreasonably, must be accepted.) JBW (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW: Just noting that at the time I moved it back to mainspace, the editor who "dubiously" moved back to draft had been blocked for 24 hrs for (Disruptive editing: abusive speedy tagging after warnings) – wbm1058 (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: Ok, and I now see that considerable concern has been expressed about that editor's draftification of articles. That certainly throws a different light on your action, which looks much more comprehensible than it did. Even so, I certainly wouldn't have done the same, as I don't think what we agree was a bad draftification justifies what I think was a bad article-ification. JBW (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Googled search shows that this company has not coverage in any independent reliable sources.Alimovvarsu (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vote seems pretty unanimous and I can't see any reason to keep the page. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as per the policies laid out by Wikipedia. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree this should be speedy deleted at the first place. Looks somebody is promoting his/her own company. Alex-h (talk) 17:02, 26 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 College of the Ozarks. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M. Graham Clark[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the College of the Ozarks probably doesn't qualify as a "major academic institution" for purposes of WP:NPROF crit. 6, a Newspapers.com search makes clear that Clark nonetheless passes the GNG: see, for instance, [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. (I'll try to add some of these sources into the article, which is completely unreferenced at the moment.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to College of the Ozarks. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 00:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to College of the Ozarks.I had a look at the RS, it certainly features him, but not sure it establishes him as being notable for anything. There is definitely RS establishing that he was specifically important to the college, but I'm unsure that establishes *general* notability/GNG. Would be interesting to hear other's opinions. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:42, 21 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Montana[edit]

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

Non-notable singer who had fifteen minutes of fame. PepperBeast (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one is rather different I think. Certainly they fail NMUSIC, and GNG as a musician. But that does not mean they fail GNG absolutely. I was then tempted to delete on the basis of single event, ie, they were potentially notable for the underlying reason they failed NMUSIC. So why a keep. There is the initial (single) event in 1989, which did get non trivial coverage. Then they get non trivial coverage again in 2005,[9] again for the reason they fail NMUSIC. And then again in 2012 they get non trivial coverage,[10] again for the reason they fail NMUSIC. So, repeated non trivial coverage over a period of more than two decades. The subject is certainly note worthy for some people. I think the subject passes GNG for reason other than NMUSIC. Aoziwe (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with User:Aoziwe's analysis. This article passes WP:GNG because of the subject's persistent notoriety, which was documented contemporaneously and subsequently via reliable sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for an odd notoriety that makes it notable enough for an article. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:22, 26 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 List of Bangladesh Premier League umpires. ✗plicit 00:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akteruzzaman (born 1967)[edit]

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

This umpire does not meet notability criteria in WP:NCRICKET and WP:GNG. He hasn't played any official forms of cricket and all the sources used in this article are Cricinfo statistics. The style of title of this article is also wrong. Human (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Human (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Human (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bangladesh Premier League umpires Subject is listed on this page. Don't think he's notable enough in his own right for a page as I'm not seeing anything to suggest a GNG pass, despite him umpiring a number of FC/LA/T20 games. Doesn't pass our updated cricket guidelines for umpires. If this article is kept though it should be renamed Akteruzzaman (cricket umpire) or something along those lines. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bangladesh Premier League umpires as per Rugbyfan22. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bangladesh Premier League umpires as Rugbyfan22 well mentioned.Alimovvarsu (talk) 17:14, 20 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} 21:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana Plug[edit]

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

Non notable company. A BEFORE doesn’t provide anything to prove the company meets WP:GNG. Xclusivzik (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP/WP:NWEB: I can find no coverage in reliable sources whatsoever, either in the article or elsewhere. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Googled search shows that this company/organization has not feature in any know independent reliable source and nor coverage. Katobara (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Popularity is not important. Policy is important. And it doesn’t meet policy. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:57, 23 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 00:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pura D'or Argan Oil[edit]

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

No indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A longstanding unreferenced WP:SPA article about a company / product line. Searches find the array of influencer reviews typical of their line of business, but not detailed coverage of the company. Insofar as the article text concerns the company, it is unsourced and fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this spam. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NCORP and it is spam. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:36, 26 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 00:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clos Payrol[edit]

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

Non-notable small wine producer PepperBeast (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wine and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Psychs[edit]

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

Non-notable musical group. PepperBeast (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete there's just not the coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:14, 25 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 00:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brayden Pierce[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. PepperBeast (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack any coverage that would add up to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actor doesn’t meet notability policy for actors or the general one. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:59, 23 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of 500 point seasons in college football[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, specifically item No. 3 of the latter, which states Wikipedia articles should not be...excessive listings of unexplained statistics. The 500-point cutoff mark seems arbitrary to me and is not explained in the article, which has only three sentences of prose. There is only one source cited, an archive of CFB Data Warehouse, which just gives the list in its entirety, also without context. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. It seems that people/sports media only care about the record holder. I don't see a comparable list in reliable sports outlets. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. This list has been around since 2006, i.e., the early days of college football on Wikipedia. The "500-point season" doesn't appear to be a "thing" that is discussed in reliable sources or even blogs. This is simply a reproduction of a non-notable list created by user "Tex Noel" at College Football Data Warehouse. See here. Further, using 500 wins as a benchmark is questionable given the wide variation in games played (as few as nine and as many as 15). A better measure of the highest scoring teams of all time would be points per game. Cbl62 (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have contributed to this list and appreciate the notification. I agree with Cbl's analysis.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nice work, nice research. Might be better suited for another place--maybe try another wiki??--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTLIST. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!)} ^(contribs) 20:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, trivial list. Frank Anchor 19:34, 22 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 Giddy Up. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giddy Up (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. No coverage outside minor blogs and doesn't appear to have charted anywhere. I oppose redirecting or merging as there are several other songs of the same name, including the 12th track in B4 the Storm. I highly doubt that this "Giddy Up" by Fe is even the most popular song of this name. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Giddy Up which contains a list of songs of the same name. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Giddy Up as suggested by the previous voter. This song is non-notable and does not qualify for its own article, and there are no other good redirect targets (no associated album article and the singer does not have a discography section). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Giddy Up per the above discussion, but I also think it would be worthwhile to redirect of Giddy Up (Fe song) to the Fe (singer) article to help readers looking for information about this specific song and singer. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, as I did not notice that other redirect and I don't think anyone else did. But I recommend sending both Giddy Up (song) (the topic of this AfD) and Giddy Up (Fe song) (currently a redirect) to Giddy Up. The second of those would technically be a "retarget" under WP procedures. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. You are correct that it should be called a retarget. I only caught the other redirect while typing my own comments. It can be easier to miss those. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 23 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 speedy delete per G5. Any editor is free to create a redirect if they see fit. ✗plicit 00:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Blamire[edit]

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

I believe that a redirect to 1998 Women's Rugby World Cup squads#Scotland would be useful, however, the creator has reverted the other redirects that I did so I'm going to send to AfD to establish consensus. Blamire has never played in a World Cup semi-final or final so does not meet WP:NRU. Searches in Google News, Google Books, ProQuest and DDG do not give me confidence that Blamire qualifies for a stand-alone article under the other route to notability, which is WP:GNG. ProQuest had 3 mentions in passing and the other searches didn't return any relevant hits at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Rugby union, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1998 Women's Rugby World Cup squads#Scotland Player fails WP:NRU and WP:GNG and redirect is the obvious WP:ATD here. There are some mentions in a search, but not enough for a GNG pass in my opinion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect. Notability not established for independent article. Coldupnorth (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - created by sock of Slowking4. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:00, 27 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 speedy delete per G5. Any editor is free to create a redirect if they see fit. ✗plicit 23:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Craigie[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. No in-depth coverage. Tame (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Rugby union, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1998 Women's Rugby World Cup squads#Scotland Player fails WP:NRU and WP:GNG and redirect is the obvious WP:ATD here. There is a bit of sourcing for this player, but not enough for a GNG pass in my opinion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1998 Women's Rugby World Cup squads#Scotland - does not meet NRU or GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - created by sock of Slowking4. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:56, 26 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 speedy delete per G5. Any editor is free to create a redirect if they see fit. ✗plicit 23:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Allsopp[edit]

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

Contested redirect (to 1998 Women's Rugby World Cup squads#Scotland which contains all of the same info that the article does). Allsopp does not meet WP:NRU as she has never participated in a World Cup semi-final or final. Searches in Google News, Google Books, ProQuest and DDG did not yield any significant coverage hence why I felt redirecting somewhere would be appropriate as I'm not confident that the subject is significant enough for a stand-alone article as per WP:GNG. Deletion can also be considered if people feel that the redirect would be unhelpful/confusing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Rugby union, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1998 Women's Rugby World Cup squads#Scotland Player fails WP:NRU and WP:GNG and redirect is the obvious WP:ATD here. Seeing lots of similar non-notable stubs on similar women's players, which could all potentially be redirected if no GNG worthy sourcing can be found. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Redirect Insufficient notability for independent article Coldupnorth (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As suggested above this seems the best way to go. There does not seem to be nearly enough for an article, but people might plausibly search for her in connection with Scotland's participation at the 1998 Women's Rugby World Cup. Dunarc (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ideally there would be a page Scottish 1998 Women's Rugby World Cup squad that would be the target of any redirect. That would be a great place to talk about when the team was announced, coach, etc. Gusfriend (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - created by sockpuppet of Slowking4. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:58, 26 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 Tornadoes of 2016#August 24 (United States and Canada). ✗plicit 00:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado outbreak of August 24, 2016[edit]

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

Per request of another user. This article is an unnecessary content fork of Tornadoes of 2016 and the associated monthly list of tornadoes (List of United States tornadoes from June to August 2016). It isn’t notable by project policy standards (i.e. no deaths, small number of tornadoes, no EF4+, etc.). United States Man (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination as this is a content fork. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons given by United States Man and Elijahandskip. Additionally, the article is not sourced beyond WP:PRIMARY sources and a couple minor news articles, which WP:ROUTINELY cover even minor tornado events. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. United States Man (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Ontario. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tornadoes of 2016#August 24 so that in case someone types in the title they are taken somewhere. 209.201.121.4 (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tornadoes of 2016#August 24 per IP; does not need an article, at least as of now, especially as a CFORK. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I actually thought this article was fine, but I see the point of deleting it. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:33, 22 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 speedy delete per G5. Any editor is free to create a redirect if they see fit. ✗plicit 00:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mags McHardy[edit]

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

Contested redirect (to 1998 Women's Rugby World Cup squads#Scotland which contains all of the same info that the article does). McHardy does not meet WP:NRU as she has never participated in a World Cup semi-final or final. Searches in Google News, Google Books, ProQuest and DDG did not yield any significant coverage hence why I felt redirecting somewhere would be appropriate due to WP:GNG failure. Deletion can also be considered if people feel that the redirect would be unhelpful/confusing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Rugby union, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1998 Women's Rugby World Cup squads#Scotland Player fails WP:NRU and WP:GNG and redirect is the obvious WP:ATD here. Seeing lots of similar non-notable stubs on similar women's players, which could all potentially be redirected if no GNG worthy sourcing can be found. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Redirect Insufficient notability for independent article Coldupnorth (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - created by sock of Slowking4. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:58, 26 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. There's only one valid "keep" opinion (the other making no argument). Rough consensus is that in the absence of sources discussing this category of counties as such, making a list of them is indiscriminately collecting information, as well as original research. Sandstein 10:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of island counties of the United States[edit]

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

Pure trivia with no meaning, significance, or sources establishing the notability of island counties as a group. Unnecessary original research that combines some counties that are actually entirely on islands with other that are composed of both islands and mainland. While of course the islands of the United States may have their own unique transportation and maritime issues, there's no indication what these have to do with county government or borders. Reywas92^Talk 17:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely original research. Cannot find anything in a WP:BEFORE or using the links above that discusses these as a group (per WP:NLIST) and there is not even a clear selection criterion (as counties like Monroe that are mostly land are counted). eviolite (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see any need to delete this list. Buaidh talk e-mail 18:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not a trivial cross-categorization, nor is it easily derived from another list, although I will note that Alaska is missing Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska. All list entries are themselves notable, so notability is not an issue, just whether this is a defective list, which it does not appear to be. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NLIST, which says Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. (emphasis mine). This is not demonstrated. eviolite (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read NLIST more carefully. "One accepted reason" strongly implies that there are others. Unlike, say, "mace wielding Anime characters voiced by Black actors," this is not a non-encyclopedic cross categorization, in that it passes a common sense test: would a reasonable encyclopedia cover island counties? Sure. Do you disagree? Jclemens (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN; WP:OR with questionable scope. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete or at the very least, apply some WP:TNT and start over. If I follow the article correctly, there is no US county that consists of a single island and maybe some smaller ones about it (except maybe the big island in Hawaii), and only a couple-three that consist only of land on islands. Most of the entries in the list are counties which have enough islands to somehow justify their inclusion, which is plainly someone's or some people's arbitrary decisions. So even if there is a reason to have an article whose contents are what the title promises, nothing in it is usable. And given the actual answer, it looks to me as though it at best should redirect to some article on US geography. Mangoe (talk) 21:53, 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 redirect to Listed buildings in Elstow. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

172 High Street, Elstow[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/172 High St, Elstow

Articles for deletion/172 High Street, Elstow (2nd nomination)

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

Consensus from previous deletion discussion was that all Grade I listed buildings were inherently notable. The building has since been downgraded to Grade II listed. So I no longer think it is notable enough for an article. The only sources for it are just listings of listed buildings so I believe it fails the Wikipedia:GNG. Other than Elstow, where the building isnt even mentioned, there are no obvious merge targets. Eopsid (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the few sources I found, [11] even implies that the previous Grade I listing may have been a mistake. Eopsid (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't see how the article fails Wikipedia:GNG, but it still doesn't seem to be very notable. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should have Listed buildings in Elstow like we do for Scotland and some parishes in England. While Grade I listed buildings and possibly the others may sometimes be notable I'm not sure if individual houses unless there's coverage elsewhere would qualify, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Thatch, Suffolk for example. I would generally assume parish churches are notable regardless of their listing and building like "X Hall" etc may be like Milden Hall but this building doesn't even have a name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there is already a red link to that potential article here: Listed buildings in England#Bedfordshire. ~~I will create one later.~~ Listed buildings in Elstow now exists. Eopsid (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd now say merge to that article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In actual fact, per WP:GEOFEAT all listed buildings are notable. In any case, being downgraded hasn't changed the fact that it was Grade I in the first place, so I fail to see why the conclusion of the previous discussion has been in any way superseded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are Grade II buildings inherently notable? There are about 300 thousand of them and if each had an article then 5% of the whole of Wikipedia would be on Grade II listed buildings in England. Eopsid (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the guideline, yes they are. Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. That's obviously never going to happen and, in any case, WP:NOTPAPER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I disagree with the idea that a building can lose its notability due to its listed status being downgraded. If a subject was once notable, it always will be. A merge into a list article as proposed above would be preferable to deletion, however such a list article must be created before this article is deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect While I still disagree with the nominator's rationale, the article can now be redirected to Listed buildings in Elstow without any loss of content. NemesisAT (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have now created Listed buildings in Elstow. I think it would be better to redirect there rather than delete. Eopsid (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Listed buildings in Elstow due to unclear consensus around Grade II buildings, but the info should be preserved somewhere. Star Mississippi 18:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Listed buildings in Elstow. Gusfriend (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is okay as it appears all content has been merged already. It is better to cover this in a list-article so there is more context. Note thatched buildings are sufficiently rare that all should be categorized, which i have just done. With redirect, the category Category:Thatched buildings in England should be attached to the redirect left behind. Also redirect should be done specifically to the building's row in the table, using an anchor I just put in, so it should be redirected to: Listed buildings in Elstow#172 High Street. Thanks User:Eopsid for creating the list-article which provides a constructive resolution here. --Doncram (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well now I think all content has been merged, after I added 172 High Street's coordinates to the list-article. I also found the tower's coordinates from Google Satellite view, but it is difficult to determine which are the listed buildings otherwise. For example, is "19 and 20 Bunyan's Mead" the house located on High Street at 52°06′56″N 0°28′03″W / 52.11554°N 0.46752°W / 52.11554; -0.46752 (Is this 19-20 Bunyan Mead?), or is it one of the buildings accessed through Bunyan's Mead, a nearby street? --Doncram (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10 out of more than 20 listed buildings in the list-article now have coordinates. There were four separate ones named "Bunyan's Mead" which are now more clearly identified, and one photo was misidentified but that has been fixed. --Doncram (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous AFD discussion, mentioned but not previously linked above, was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/172 High St, Elstow. I successfully just added it into the top stuff. The previous discussion should be considered, but so far as I can tell was apparently only consulted by the deletion nominator. --Doncram (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Listed buildings in Elstow - despite it being a listed building, no other notability has been established. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 15:51, 24 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 00:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bango plc[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Nothing useful on Google. This article contains 6 sources: 4 are directly form company website and describe company products, one is PDF hosted on company Wordpress account and is just a pitch to investors, one source (strongest of all) is an article heavily quoting from company spokesperson and mostly reiterating company claims, no commentary at all. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 5 of the 6 sources listed are wholly managed by the company in question and there’s not much press coverage other than about the stock value, which itself doesn’t make the company notable.GeekBurst (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article setting out a company's wares, supported by references to its own site. Searches find passing mentions of their 2005 IPO [12], to partnerships such as that recently with Digital Turbine [13], plus various stock-tip items, but none of these passes beyond trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Without better, this fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 12:30, 26 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. Consensus is that the sources present and available do not meet GNG, and that NFOOTBALL has not been attained. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valdrin Azemi[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. --BlameRuiner (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A professional footballer. The article got 6 references and meet WP:NFOOTY as he has played in competitive games. Thanks. Jamalahmadpk (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 2 references added. I have also updated the International career section with reference.Afzlfc (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To both of the above, the number of references is not the relevant point here. An article could have over 20 references and still fail WP:GNG. Please be careful not to WP:REFBOMB as this can be unhelpful. I've noticed that almost all of the references repeat the same content over and over again. The sentences which translate to Born in Finland but playing a few matches in the Kosovo youth national team, Azemi played in the ranks of Nordvärmlands FF in Sweden last season. Azemi was with the MP of the second week and played less than 80 minutes against Ilves in the Go On Cup. are repeated in all of the following 'independent' sources: MSN, Lansi Savo, Pallo TV and MP. Unless somebody can find better sources, I am leaning towards deletion here as articles copied and pasted across different websites should only count as one article for the purpose of assessing notability. I also disagree with the suggestion that he meets WP:NFOOTBALL as he has only played in the lower tiers of Finland and Slovenia which are not featured in WP:FPL. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. So we can assume that Lansi Savo,Pallo TV and MP copied from MSN right? But MSN is a highly notable source so even if we remove Lansi Savo,Pallo TV and MP still we can use still use MSN as a notable reference. Also if you check then most of the pages created about players from lesser known leagues contain hardly one or two sources (that too not notable sources) because these leagues are not popular like La Liga, Bundesliga or English Premier League. So if we have to delete pages just because they have one or two references then based on this criteria, majority of the Wikipedia pages will be deleted. You also mentioned that you disagree with the suggestion that he meets WP:NFOOTBALL as the leagues he played in are not featured in WP:FPL. I have checked the WP:FPL list and being a hardcore football fan, I think this list needs major upgrade because WP:FPL mentioned the definition that "fully professional league" is the one where virtually all the adult players are paid a salary that they can live on and do not need additional sources of income. So based on this definition, Ykkonen league (2nd tier) league of Finland should be included in the WP:FPL list too because Finland's both of the top two leagues Veikkausliiga and Ykkonen are single national leagues. Infact a few years ago, Finnish football also brought minimum wages for the footballers so Veikkausliiga and Ykkonen are now professional leagues where all the players get salary and they don't need additional source of income. Thanks. Afzlfc (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide a reliable source for Ykkonen being fully pro and present it at WT:FPL then it would be really helpful for our community. Thanks. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I stated that he meets WP:NFOOTY is that although Ykkonen is the second highest level of the Finnish football league system (after Veikkausliiga) but Ykkonen is infact the highest league managed by the Football Association of Finland. Because Veikkausliiga is organized by a distinct organisation which is also mentioned in the Wikipedia page of Veikkausliiga. Jamalahmadpk (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should be discussed at WT:FPL, not here. Until the consensus is reached and the league promoted to FPL, the arguments displayed here are irrelevant to player's notability. As of right now, he fails NFOOTY. @Spiderone: would you cast your vote properly here? --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and I will be happy to make contributions to the WP:FPL list once I get some free time from the personal life. Just a quick query, I assume that for footballers, meeting NFOOTY is more important than GNG right? because I viewed a few of the articles created by you and other editors which hardly contains one or two references and that too from some generic stats sites or interviews. Thanks. Jamalahmadpk (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not played in a league listed at WP:FPL, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. With, at best, one source MSN showing more than a passing mention, with the rest just being carbon copies of that source, does not have the multiple sources showing significant coverage, failing WP:GNG. If someone finds something significant when searching in Finnish or Kosovan sources then please ping me. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the level of quality sources that provide coverage that has depth needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass GNG, and does not meet NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll refrain from !voting because I'm not sufficiently familiar with the sports WP:SNGs, but the sourcing is far from great. Ref [1] is MSN with no byline, citing the football club as the "source". I believe this is just regurgitating a press release. Ref [2] is a well-established if somewhat local Finnish newspaper. Ref [3] is a sports website, which calls for (transl.) "we ask clubs to send as all [news] that you believe would interest football enthusiasts or better your image.", so I'll assume this too is just regurgitating a press release. Ref [4] is a stats website. Refs [5], [6] and [7] are club websites and thus not independent. Ref [8] looks like a news site, but the article byline indicates this is simply a press release by the player's agency. All told, one good ref (the Länsi-Savo piece) a few unclear ones that appear to be just press release regurgitation (MSN, PalloTV, Futtpro) and then a bunch that are completely non-independent. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:27, 26 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 00:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonment College, Cumilla[edit]

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

The sources provided are weak and I can't find anything from searching the Bengali name "ক্যান্টনমেন্ট কলেজ, কুমিল্লা" or alternatively "কুমিল্লা ক্যান্টনমেন্ট কলেজ" to suggest that this high school meets either WP:NORG or even WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-08 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 27 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 Elric of Melniboné. ATD. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melniboné[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Pure undiluted and unreferenced Wikipedia:Fancruft (but not PROD legible since it was XfD in 2010, but that XfD was a technical error - no valid rationale was provided, so this mess languished for a decade...). So here it goes: the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I suggest this is redirected to Elric of Melniboné, a possibly notable character (see also recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stormbringer and the ongoing Talk:Elric_of_Melniboné#Should_this_be_rewritten_into_an_article_about_the_"Eric_series"?). I don't think there is anything salvageable here by merge (no references). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with very limited Merge. The current article is a wild piece of fancruft, but it would be reasonable to include a short description of Melniboné in the Elric of Melniboné article on the grounds that it is an important part of the plot (we're allowed short plot summaries!), and the world of Elric has prompted role-playing games set in that world. I did find one academic article in JSTOR that referred to Melniboné in the same sentence as Le Guin's Earthsea and Tolkein's fictional universe. It's a passing reference not worth including, but it suggests that the world itself has some value. Since there's apparently nothing much written about the world separate from the novel and the character Elric, it's definitely best handled there. Elemimele (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good grief, if you're going to refer to Elric as a possibly notable character, how do you expect to be taken seriously? More to the point, this is a discussion better handled as an RFC rather than a series of AFDs of different fictional elements of an unquestionably notable fictional franchise. Merging Melniboné to a "world of Elric" sort of article, which could also include Pan Tang, the Young Kingdoms, and whatever other city or nation articles exist, would be reasonable, and perhaps should be done sensibly with the characters and books as well. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen an RfC in this context, although it is a thought worth considering, given that a day has passed and nobody has commented on the talk page. AfDs are, however, a valid forum for discussions of the fate of articles, particularly when the majority if not all of the content present in them is WP:TNTable, as seems to be the case here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't merge any of it, to be honest. Elric of Melniboné already has a plot section, which in fact is better done away with than expanded. Why? Because there's an awful lot of high grade literary criticism sourcing available to do a thorough character analysis addressing all of the plot points, that no Wikipedia editor has seen fit to use at all; e.g. Higgins 2021, pp. 142–147 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHiggins2021 (help), Laycock 2015, pp. 57–58 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLaycock2015 (help) and Scroggins 2015 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFScroggins2015 (help) (too many pages to list) just for starters, which have far more than we have, by an English professor, a professor of religious studies, and the editor of the L.A. Review of Books. The plot summary, in contrast and as usual, is only verifiable from the primary text, and totally unnecessary considering what is available for use and as yet unused.
There's pretty much nothing about the island. I went looking for sources to see whether I could add source support to or at least rewrite this, and found nothing that was about the place rather than about the central character. Then I noticed right at the foot of the article that this isn't even from the novels, but is from a role-playing game. But the only sources for this in that, when I went looking, are in-universe and fiction rather than factual. In any case, the game has its own article at Stormbringer (role-playing game).
However, this is a legitimate redirect to take readers to the character article.
- Higgins, David M. (2021). "Victims of entropy". Reverse Colonization: Science Fiction, Imperial Fantasy, and Alt-victimhood. The new American canon: the Iowa series in contemporary literature and culture. University of Iowa Press. ISBN 9781609387846.
- Laycock, Joseph (2015). "Dungeon's & Dragons as religious phenomenon". Dangerous Games: What the Moral Panic Over Role-Playing Games Says about Play, Religion, and Imagined Worlds. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520284913.
- Scroggins, Mark (2015). Michael Moorcock: Fiction, Fantasy and the World's Pain. Critical Explorations in Science Fiction and Fantasy. Vol. 52. McFarland. ISBN 9781476663074.
Speaking as an administrator with access to the administrator deletion tool, I wouldn't need that tool to fix this. Uncle G (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Bravo. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noble administrators hide arcane wisdom in gnomic utterance and mystic words. Would anyone mind expressing their opinion in a way that lesser mortals can understand? And on a more prosaic point: plot summaries are quite useful for casually-curious readers who haven't got the actual book handy, and don't have access to the deeper literary criticism sources. Elemimele (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm I wouldn't call my Uncle's comments "gnomic", which typically means "pithy"--"prolix" would be unfair but closer to the truth. Nor do I think his lexicon is mystic--it's more a mixture of syntax and non-colloquial word choice. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry! I was being unnecessarily grumpy. But Uncle G, I couldn't work out whether you wanted to do away with the whole of this article, or the whole of the plot-summary in Elric of Melniboné, or, from the comment about not needing a delete tool, keep both? And Drmies, I assumed your 'Bravo' was intended to support the outcome favoured by Uncle G, in which case it would be helpful to know what outcome was intended. I was just confused! Elemimele (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, my "bravo" was directed at my uncle's capabilities. He can make anything notable. Anything--except for collon, of course. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Easy and obvious: Don't use the administrator delete tool. Pick up the ordinary editing tool that even editors without accounts have. Zap this entirely. Zap the unsourced plot summary made up by Wikipedia editors directly. Replace with proper verifiable character analysis, including many plot points that the professors go into in detail. No, this isn't my itch to scratch, and I'm not responsible for writing every bloody article in the encyclopaedia. That's SimonP's job. ☺ I've given the sources, down to the page numbers. Someone interested in collaborative editing can take the baton and run with it. And it's surely the itch to scratch of the person who thinks that the content should be edited out. With the editing tool. Xe signed the nomination. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Uncle G So just to be clear, your preferred solution is a redirect via WP:SOFTDELETE, and fixing of the target article (Elric of Melniboné)? Which is the outcome I believe I suggested in my nomination :P Any reason you don't include the bolded word "redirect" in your vote, as it the AfD custom, and to make things easier on the closer? PS. Thanks for finding the sources, I would encourage you to copypaste them to the talk page discussion at Elric's page which I started and which I linked from here, so that your efforts are not lost in the AfDs archives but are at lest preserved on the talk page for those who will try to fix this particular bloody article :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you both, Uncle G and Drmies for the clarification. I'm afraid this article isn't my itch to scratch either, because cash is short and I don't fancy paying for access to these books just to sort out this article. I should probably have kept my nose out, and stuck to articles where I have the resources to be more constructive. Elemimele (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that fancruft applies Hekerui (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some fictional locations are significant enough in literary history to be notable enough for Wikipedia articles and to clearly not be WP:Fancruft (an essay which comes to no conclusions in any case and certainly doesn't mandate deletion). This is one of them. It's not an especially good article, but it is a notable topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp Can you show us sources that support your view? Which independent article/book/etc. discusses the notability (significance, etc.) of this fictional land? (Not to be confused with the book series) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect As much as a I like Moorcock and the Eternal Champion and who doesn't, there is no sources on the article. It has been here since 2005 and reduced by 11k odd but no sources. Redirect as an alternative. I'm suprised that nobody has found references in the meantine. scope_creep^Talk 02:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elric of Melniboné as an ATD. As it sits it's been unsourced since its inception in 2005. I'd like to thank the nominator, for reminding me of Moorcock, it's been years since I've read him, and since I'm about to finish up Paul O. Williams' Pelbar Cycle, This will give me another dozen or so books to re-read. Unless sourcing can be found to show a scholarly discussion about this fictional location, a redirect will do. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:01, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elveno Pastorelli[edit]

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

No indication of meeting notability for persons. At best known for one event, which is not sufficient. Slywriter (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS establishing notability here for this person. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a prefect and the first general manager of a not-yet-officially-established Protezione Civile, appointed by president Pertini. Of course he's mainly known for his involvement in the Vermicino tragedy, but also for leading the rescue and reconstruction operations after the 1980 Irpinia earthquake. He is a prominent figure in the history of emergency services and civil defense in Italy, since he contribued significantly to their establishment (see this book by Walter Veltroni, or this history book published by Editori Laterza). Lots of other reliable sources can be easily found online [14]--Alienautic (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources in the Italian page - that can be utilized in the @en page - to achieve notability. I have started copying over relevant sources, and fixing the citation formatting. Lamona (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added references but there is more behind firewalls, e.g. Corriere della Sera, that I can't get to. I'm not 100% sure that this has taken the page up to notability, but it's getting there. Lamona (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements by Lamona. RoseCherry64 (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, besides the already highlined sources there is plenty of additional coverage in la Repubblica archives, such as [15] and [16]. Cavarrone 19:52, 24 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 00:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculate Conception Academy–Greenhills[edit]

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

There are some WP:RS that mention the school, but they are not in depth enough to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:41, 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]
Can the nominator please link to the reliable sources coverage he is referring to, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Here you go: ANCX, GMA News, Inquirer, The Manila Times, and Rappler. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 18:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree those links show only passing mentions, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources above solely have passing mention. Couldn't find more. Femke (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references for this are to inadequate for notability. So the article should be deleted due to failing WP:GNG, WP:NORG, and WP:NSCHOOL. WP:TAKEYOURPICK. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:01, 21 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 00:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathis Gamme[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Can't find anything online that supports notability in any way. Cross-wiki attempt to promote this person. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could be promotional as well. He is referencing instagram posts. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following comment was left by the article's creator, Alpaca5000, on the talk page of this discussion page; moving here as a courtesyGirth Summit_(blether) 18:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Instagram mentions have been deleted from the article.
- I have been trying to write an article for this person for sometimes now and I assure you this article stays neutral without promoting anything

Delete as I see no reliable piece of source. Instagram, Spotify can not be the sources to support notability. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 22:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis regarding the recent additions to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON; everything seems to come down to spotify, twitter etc. Elemimele (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Elemimele. --Vaco98 (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article seems to consist entirely of references to self-published sources, and reads promotionally. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is true the article seems to have been written by someone close to the person, thus looks a bit promotional. However I reckon the creator did somewhat a good job and the article doesn't deserve to be deleted, in my opinion. Information is in most cases correct, a lot of things were easy to be verified. But changes have to be made, the article gives too many details I am still not able to confirm as "true" after some researches I did online. Loganinheaven (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Having gone through all of the references, none are SIGCOV worthy - many are social media, song listings in Spotify/etc, or sites/pages which do not discuss Gamme at all. One or two of the Radio Slash/Grand Buffet links do mention Gamme but in no way confer notability - they just confirm that he participated in a student webradio show. -M.nelson (talk) 23:28, 21 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!} 06:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project Dragonfly (Miami University)[edit]

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

This article is somewhat promotional and has very weak sourcing. As of this writing, most of the "sources" have nothing to do with this organization at all, and they only ones left are nothing more than verifying that this organization exists. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure hype for a Master's-adjacent program that looks pretty sketchy. Abductive (reasoning) 19:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actual program through Miamioh.edu; large Masters program with 16 field courses, and 8 partner zoos and 1 botanical garden (see links in article), similar to larger "School for Field Studies", for example. May not meet Wikipedia notability standards at present.Kingsbridge1977 (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:23, 25 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global Cannabinoids[edit]

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

Declined G11 (I think it would've been eligible). Fails NCORP - little to no independent coverage. Mainly sourced to press-releases and other promotional pieces. KH-1 (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Delete I believe this passes WP:GNG, references are good. This business is significant and I see no need to delete the article. GoldMiner24 (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you believe are the WP:THREE best sources? As it stands, it reads too much like an advertisement. Femke (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this closer, I believe I was wrong. The sources I thought were best were the Business Insider articles as I thought them a reputable source, but actually reading the articles, I doubt that now. I also agree that it fails WP:NPOV. Changing to delete. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 13:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find evidence of notability, and the article is so promotional WP:TNT is warranted. Femke (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search for reliable coverage about the company comes up empty, otherwise I would suggest keeping and updating. Somb8franko (talk) 20:24, 22 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 00:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhala Thandanana[edit]

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

Bhala Thandanana

Unreleased movie that does not satisfy any version of film notability, either past, present, or proposed, or general notability. The article says nothing about significant coverage of the film, or of its production. The article doesn't even say that production was finished, only that a ceremony was held of the start of production. It should not be necessary to look at the references to determine whether a film or any other subject satisfies general notability, because the article should speak for itself. A review of the references does not show general notability. A review of the references does at least show that production was completed, and that the producers are advertising the film, but there is nothing resembling independent secondary coverage in the references.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	teleganatoday.com	A teaser about a publicity photo of the star	No	No		No
2	thehansindia.com	A teaser about the stars and the film	No	No		No
3	timesofindia.indiatimes.com	Another teaser about the film and the stars	No	No	?	No
4	news18.com	Another teaser about the film	No	No		No
5	sakshi.com	An interview says that filming was finished	No	Yes		No
6	timesofindia.indiatimes.com	Interview with second leading man	No	No		No
7	/timesofindia.indiatimes.com/	Press release about a pooja for the start of filming.	No	Yes		No

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until release per WP:ATD-I. This source says that the film is scheduled for a February release but no release date announced yet. Notability may be re-evaluated once the film releases with the help of reviews. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: There are chances that this may become notable after release. It is immature to decide notability right now. Kicking this down the road is better than deleting and recreating. Venkat TL (talk) 19:19, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lexi Elisha[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE. Cited reviews are to niche industry publications of questionable reliability and importance. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As per nomination seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO, references are niche. However, there are a lot of references for an article of this size. GoldMiner24 (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the coverage indicates notability. None of this person's songs have ever charted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources so notability, and having searched I can't find any other significant references. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 22:34, 21 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Bennet[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable character. Article sources only mention the character in passing. I originally redirected this due to it being 76 KB of plot summaries and having a cleanup tag from 2009, but as another editor contested the redirection I thought it would be better to AFD it instead (after cutting most of the fancruft out). Suggest deletion and redirection to Heroes (American TV series). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].... And that's just from the first page of Scholar results. Some are a bit on the light side, one's an undergraduate thesis, but as a corpus I'm pretty sure that it shows the character has been the subject of scholarly reflection and meets GNG thereby. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first source does not contain SIGCOV level coverage. She is mentioned three times, the first two in plot summary, the last, as an example of character (other being Kate from Lost) who "serve primarily as objects to pursue, love, and protect." Although a half-sentence of analysis is better than nothing. The second source has a bit more but it is an "Undergraduate Thesis". The coverage in the book is promising, although preview does cut stuff off. It's on Z-library if anyone wants to look at it more. Link 5 is to an expired temporary copy of a file, so User:Jclemens, please fix the link. Bottom line, the topic may be notable but the current article is terrible. If someone fixes it, great, ping me and I'll revise my vote. Until then, redirect to the list of characters. But maybe User:Daranios or User:Toughpigs will rescue this before that happens, they have a good track record and this article seems salvageable. (Sidenote: I still remember the character... not that it's a factor in anything). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly have no idea why the 5th link doesn't work for you--it's what I got from Google Scholar, and still works for me. It was just '"Claire Bennet" Heroes' for the scholar search string, so you may be able to find it yourself. Jclemens (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I would say that this meets WP:GNG but it's close to failing, I think it's in a bit of a grey area. GoldMiner24 (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a bit of positive reception of the character already in the article, and sources like some of those mentioned by Jclemens can expand this, fullfilling WP:WHYN. E.g. "Salva a la animadora, salva el mundo": una lectura propagandística de la serie Heroes talks about what the character represents and is by no means a passing mention, and Save the Cheerleader, Save the Males Resurgent Protective Paternalism in Popular goes in the same direction in a shorter way. What sources there are currently in the article are not decisive when determining notability, rather a proper WP:BEFORE search should be done before nominating an article for deletion. Daranios (talk) 08:21, 25 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collon (confectionery)[edit]

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

The page is a phantom: "collon" simply is not a term used in any language to refer to wagashi, the topic of the article. There is a type of "western-style" (yōgashi) confection called 'collon', produced by Glico, but this is not referenced in the page. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The sources cited turn out to be about wagashi, with no mention of "collon" that I've come across. All of the images of "collon" uploaded by the article creator at Commons are also up for deletion for being outright filched from WWW sites about wagashi. I found the Glico thing, too. The article creator has misrepresented the sources as to their amply clear name of the subject. Who knows what other misrepresentations lurk in the content! Any sort of merger seems contraindicated. This is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh but Uncle G, this wretched article can't even decide whether or not it's about wagashi. We read that this "Collon" is "also called wagashi in Japanese", that it's "a combination of a variety of sweets, candies, ice cream and dessert", and that it has a number of types -- among which, ice cream doesn't appear, and senbei does. (Senbei, a kind of wagashi -- really?) Oh, and we read that mochi "is a type of collon". (Huh?) Reality check: This is Collon コロン, an inexpensive, mass-produced product of Ezaki Glico. Here it is at ja:WP. (Don't confuse it with the long-established confectioner コロンバン Colombin, colombin.co.jp/.) En:Wikipedia already has an article about wagashi, one that wouldn't benefit from any input from this hopelessly confused mess, none of which should be merged anywhere. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, it does seem that wagashi can include senbei, or just about anything except "Western" high-sugar confectionery. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the most (unintentionally) amusing parts of this sorry effort is the classification of "Bing Sheng", "Shang Sheng", "Cha Xi", "Shi" and "Gong Yi" varieties of "collon". Anyone at least slightly familiar with the romanization of Japanese will immediately realize that these are, at best, extraordinarily idiosyncratic renderings. And many literate people will think: aha, this isn't Japanese at all; it's just Chinese, via pīnyīn. Now, I don't know Chinese, but I'd guess: "Bing Sheng" is supposed to represent 並生菓子, "Shang Sheng" 上生菓子, "Cha Xi" 茶席菓子, "Shi" 蒔菓子, and "Gong Yi" 工芸菓子; each as if read in standard Chinese and if followed by whatever's the Chinese pronunciation of 菓子 (guozi, perhaps?). Now, there are certain ambiguities in the Japanese readings -- thanks in part to rendaku; is 菓子 kashi or gashi? -- but the cited source (a decent one, as it happens) takes the trouble to specify that 蒔 is pronounced maki (not shi). The moral: Don't take seriously any citation in the article of a Japanese-language source. -- Hoary (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this hopeless mess, the decent article is wagashi.Fulmard (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wagashi: As an alternative per WP:ATD-R. If this is really about wagashi, why would we not redirect there? The page views suggest it’s indeed a valid search term, and if redirection gets readers to the correct information, that would seem the best solution. (Not opposed to history deletion if someone feels that’s absolutely necessary, but nothing jumps out at me to say so; the history hasnt seen much activity since acceped through AfC.) —2pou (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the WP:XYZ definition of "valid search term", but in no sense does "collon" mean, refer to, or be related in any normal sense to wagashi. Actually, if someone was looking for "collon", they probably read it on the package of the Glico yōgashi ("western sweets"), so such a redirect would be completely misleading. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:11, 26 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 List of Nagaland cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nzanthung Mozhui[edit]

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

Really fails to meet WP:NCRICKET, non-notable of non-notables.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to List of Nagaland cricketersI concur that this fails WP:NCRICKET. GoldMiner24 (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nagaland cricket team, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R#KEEP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - Redirect to the List of Nagaland cricketers, per BST, below. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to List of Nagaland cricketers Fails WP:NCRIC and not seeing anything to suggest a WP:GNG past. ~~Would be redirect, but no list article currently exists for Nagaland cricket team players.~~ Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD now a list exists thanks to great work from BST. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lugnuts. StickyWicket (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as an obvious ATD to List of Nagaland cricketers which now exists (just under an hour, fwiw). @GoldMiner24, Lugnuts, AssociateAffiliate, Rugbyfan22, and Michri michri: y'all might want to review the list (please) and in some cases revise your comments here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing:, you are really mastermind my dear. Yes as a list has been created, now the article should be redirected rather than deleting. Btw, there are a no. of such players from Nagaland (like Bhavik Patel) whose articles like may fail GNG. To nominate them for redirecting and not deletion, shall I have to nominate them separately for deletion like this article? Michri michri (talk) 07:16, 20 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!} 02:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HollaEx Kit[edit]

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

Contested PROD - this ~~organisation~~ product does not appear to meet WP:NCORP etc - sourcing I could find does not amount to significant coverage in independent sources. All the secondary sources given appear to be passing mentions or only contain quotes from the company's founder. firefly ( t · c ) 12:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 12:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 12:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP:, nominator probably doesn't have access to sources. And, it's not an organization page, this page is about the kit that has of sources. There are so many in-depth independent sources available for this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daringsmith (talk • contribs) 12:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 12 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!} 03:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've looked through most of the sources. Many of them contain passing mentions/quotes from involved people. The Yahoo! source is in-depth, but reads like a press release and is not original content by Yahoo, but instead from a less reliable commercial website. WP:NORG also applies to products, so the "best of the best" fails as significant coverage per WP:ORGDEPTH. Femke (talk) 18:51, 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. It sounds like this would fail POLITICIAN if this was at the founder’s name but as the party the policy is GNG and I’m not seeing a clear consensus on that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One Love Party[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable minor political party. Most of the sources are local newspapers mentioning that Love stood in various by-elections, very little significant coverage. Even [22] is only a couple of paragraphs (and is mainly quoted from him) Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep with move to Ankit Love I was a "weak delete" on the previous AfD, that reached no consensus. Nowadays, I think Love and his party ultimately did manage to make enough fuss to attract enough RS coverage to meet WP:GNG standards. It seems to me more appropriate to have this as an Ankit Love article give the political party was a vanity project. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge into Ankit Love Wikipedia is not a Gazatteer of political parties and we should not promote articles as free Web space. This party had no impact, no notable results, hardly any coverage in reliable sources. A merge into the founder's article seems the right decision. doktorb _words^deeds 13:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Love doesn't have an article, it's been deleted multiple times, and create-protected. His name just redirects to this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per User:Joseph2302. Wikipedia is not a Gazatteer of political parties and we should not promote articles as free Web space. This party had no impact, no notable results, hardly any coverage in reliable sources. doktorb _words^deeds 15:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced, passes general notability. Has been kept on two prior occasions, notability is permanent. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boynamedsue Has been kept on two prior occasions- no it hasn't. It was deleted at the first AfD and recreated, and the second AfD had no consensus. And the founder's article has also been deleted multiple times. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed: one delete and one no-consensus. But, looking at this again, I think Boynamedsue's point that this passes general notability holds, and that's what's important. There's just too much on Love and/or the party to ignore. I am thus striking my "weak" earlier and switching to a full "keep". Bondegezou (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dissapointed to read this. We really need a purge of these also rans, I don't understand your logic and I don't understand why notability guidelines are apparently irrelevant for political parties. doktorb _words^deeds 12:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I remain an inclusionist at heart, but WP:NOTPAPER, so why do we need a purge of these also-rans if we can write a sensible article about them? WP:GNG is the top notability guideline and Ankit Love and his pretend party managed to get a fair amount of RS coverage, in the UK and south Asia. Love continues to be active, more so in India (see [23] for an additional citation). I think we re-tool the article to be primarily about Ankit Love, with a section on the One Love Party, and we have something that is encyclopaedic. Bondegezou (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, but I don't quite see the logic here. Why do we need to get rid of articles on parties which pass GNG? Boynamedsue (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced the party passes WP:GNG. Lots of the sources are about Love the person not the party (and article on him has been AFDed multiple times too, and create protected). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has several national and international news feature references, in regards to London mayoral and high profile UK by-elections. If UK parties like Duma Polska, Peace Party (UK), and MP3 Party have articles with less news coverage, page views and attention in general, keeping the One Love page seems in balance of wiki project too. Worthwhile looking through this list of other defunct UK political parties. --Death Star Central (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I'd delete those in a heartbeat. doktorb _words^deeds 05:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Other stuff exists is not persuasive, although there's been the assertion that there's sources sufficient to meet the GNG. Relisting to enable discussion of those sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To respond to the relisting comment, there are 44 citations given, but these vary from primary sources (the party itself and election paperwork), sources that are yellow at WP:RSP (Business Insider), local newspapers (e.g. Hackney Citizen), some deadlinks (Huck Magazine, Huffington Post) and passing mentions in election coverage. But there is some better coverage: there are pieces specifically about the party or Love himself in Vice [24], Outlook India [25], Gulf News [26], Dazed [27], Hindustan Times [28] and NDTV [29]. Those look like the best sources to me. They cover more than one election campaign, so I think the usual WP:NPOL/WP:1EVENT argument doesn't apply. Bondegezou (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are the working links to Huck Magazine 1, and HuffPost 2, there is also Indian Express 9 and Hindi language Dainik Jagran 10 (most read daily newspaper in India) --Death Star Central (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've fixed the Huck link in the article. That new Huff Post link is still broken for me, however. Bondegezou (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, this time should work, HuffPost 2, looks like there was a bug in wiki source editor when converting numbers in "insert link" button. --Death Star Central (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't a gazetter of dead or unusual or short lived political parties. It made made zero impact on the people of the UK. There is no lasting impact from its existance, nothing of value, so how can it be notable. It just seems on the surface to be a vanity project for the individual that established it. The coverage is all WP:1E stuff. scope_creep^Talk 03:39, 28 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 02:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Northrace[edit]

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

2007 article with only a single database entry as a reference. WP:BEFORE turns up just social media profiles and Wikipedia mirrors, and even if the topic was notable, it'd need WP:TNT (and that's putting it politely). ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination, WP:TNT. GoldMiner24 (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ouch. Femke (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly no evidence of notability. Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. Article creator seems to have been SPA and there's no evidence of notability. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!)} ^(contribs) 21:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to the Blizzard - Promotional article that slipped through the cracks until now. Potentially speedy worthy. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 09:08, 22 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 Rocky Linux. ✗plicit 00:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Enterprise Software Foundation[edit]

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

It does not pass WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. I'd suggest redirecting to Rocky Linux. MarioGom (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rocky Linux. All coverage mentioning the foundation focus on the product or are press releases. 192.76.8.95 (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect Fails WP:NCORP. Only one ref on the page points to a source not made by Rocky Enterprise. I'm not able to find much coverage elsewhere about this article's subject. They do develop a software, Rocky Linux, which is notable but WP:NOTINHERITED. Should be redirected to Rocky Linux. GoldMiner24 (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Femke (talk) 08:33, 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 merge to Michael Cimino. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cimino's unrealized projects[edit]

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

Do we really need a list of things Cimino tried doing, e.g. adapting Crime and Punishment, or projects he was considered for? Fails WP:LISTN. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Egad, there's a whole bunch of these things: Category:Lists of unrealized projects by artist, "artist" meaning film director. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an exceptional case. The unrealised projects are referenced, and looking at the main article on Ciminio, his extraordinarily large number of failures and things that didn't get off the ground seems to be a big feature of his career and even notability. In a super-successful career, they'd have merged into the background, but in his case, they are the foreground. Nevertheless, this list is so large that it would be unwieldy to merge it all into the main article, so it works quite well as a separate list. But I do sympathise with the nominator: normally I'd have regarded a list like this as pretty pointless. Elemimele (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If it were formatted more compactly, with bullet points instead of subsections for each film, and ifthe reference list just gave references without the quotes, it would be less than half its present length. Also, perhaps the films for which the reference shows just "one of those considered" should not be in the list. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: echoing Elemimele. I changed the formatting to bullet points and it's still completely unwieldy, so I don't think a merge is the way to go unless someone can remove about half or more of these. I only see a handful I feel like I could remove uncontroversially. -- asilvering (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being "considered to direct" and "attempting" to write this and that, writing unproduced scripts or even simply being "interested in adapting Atlas Shrugged" are all pretty deletable IMO. That thins things down considerably. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input would be really helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Michael Cimino. The list here is way longer than Cimino's filmography unlike other artists with similar pages. Merging with the parent article would cover them per WP:DUE instead of indiscriminately listing every possible entry. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the most important blocks and dump the rest. scope_creep^Talk 03:12, 28 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!} 02:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Senior center[edit]

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

Merge with Assisted living and this page a redirect there. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 00:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 00:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A senior center mostly serves people who are capable of living on their own, which is the opposite of assisted living. http://www.stlambertseniors.ca/english/ is a good example. Moving to Wiktionary would be another option, but I think a lot could be written about senior centers. See this book, for example: https://books.google.com/books?id=hBseBQAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y Weil, Joyce. The New Neighborhood Senior Center : Redefining Social and Service Roles for the Baby Boom Generation. ISBN 978-0-8135-6296-4. OCLC 1125189680. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Senior centers usually provide an open place for older folks to gather in a community, along with food (be it just a lunch, or coffee and refreshments while playing board or card games) and entertainment (including trips to other cities for events such as baseball and football games, plays or musicals, gambling, or outdoor recreation). The nominator's rationale is spare and curt, and suggests they didn't do any research into what a senior center is. This is 100% fixable. Nate • (chatter) 03:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's not really an argument being made to delete here, and the suggested merge would not be appropriate, as senior centers are not the same as assisted living facilities. While the current article is a stub, there are plenty of legitimate sources discussing senior centers, such as the example mentioned by Eastmain already. Rorshacma (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Vaco98 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's different than assisted living and although the article is a stub, it is still notable. GoldMiner24 (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only are senior centers in no way related to assisted living centers, senior centers are usually available at little to no cost for seniors in the community who are generally independent and wish to have social connections and activities. Assisted living centers, by contrast, are apartments for rent that provide extra services for seniors who cannot live completely independently, such as cooking, housecleaning, and nursing services. Not sure that the original nominator has any familiarity with the subject. Eauhomme (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At least in the US a "senior center" is a community building often run by the city, aimed at providing interaction, recreation and enrichment to people classed as "seniors". They are recreation centers, not residences. Assisted living is a catchall for a wide system of levels of living arrangements that are congregate and provide various levels of assistance. There are also senior residences that do not provide assistance, and some residents of both assisted and non-assisted have their own activities centers, which in some cases may be open to people beyond the residents. They are clearly different things, even if at times there is a senior center within an asissted living facility.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 21 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!} 02:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Signer[edit]

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

No indication of notability PepperBeast (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. GoldMiner24 (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with GoldMiner24 The article is very sparse and is a stub that is not based on reliable sources.InfiNeuro (talk) 03:23, 21 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.