Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< July 03	July 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ko-c

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

WP:ADMASQ article on a Non notable rapper who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO and in general lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Furthermore a before search turns up nothing but hits in self published sources, user generated sources and unreliable sources which have 0 reputation for fact checking or possess editorial oversight. Celestina007 (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nominator is correct on unreliable and self-promotional sources. This article is a totally typical entry in the trend of unknown African rappers trying to include Wikipedia in their promotional strategies. "Rose to prominence" is typical prose in this type of entry, and in this case it's false because Ko-C has a whopping two songs in five years. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Curbon7 (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arnolds

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

Non-notable bakery chain that fails WP:CORP. Deleted in 2008 for lack of reliable sources with sig coverage, WP:BEFORE today still brings up nothing . nearlyevil 665 18:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page in Finnish is equally sparse. JBchrch talk 09:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable business. I assume the vaunted (in 2017) expansion into Sweden didn't happen.TheLongTone (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Faila WP:NCORP, with no significant coverage. Alex-h (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmala High School, Vijayawada

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

No significant coverage nor reliable sources. Does not pass WikiProject Schools notability criteria. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 23:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 23:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 23:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 23:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Education in Vijayawada. I'm fine with either since this school clearly isn't notable. Although, the Education in Vijayawada is of pretty poor quality also. So it might be better just to delete this, but I'm throwing it out there as a possible option anyway since redirects are cheap Etc. Etc... Adamant1 (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftfy . The article is poor, Does not even mention the city is in India. I could not succeed to open the two Refs. No sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm fine with it being drafted if that's what the creator of the article wants done. No point in drafting it if they don't though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Promotional content remved. (non-admin closure) dudhhr_Contribs 06:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kayode Ajulo

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

Possible covert UPE G11 borderline eligible promotional article on a non notable politician and lawyer who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:NPOL and in general lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article creator has stated they are not doing un-paid editing (UPE) on their talk page but read a profile and found the subject lacked a Wikipedia article.Citing (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs some cleanup for language and clarity (and also more specific sourcing) but it looks like there are enough things written about the subject to merit an article[1][2][3].Citing (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm not sure how reliable the given sources are but it seems like he gets mentioned in (e.g.) The Guardian.Citing (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Citing, I’m willing to analyze the sources, the first source is pr sponsored, the second is an extended announcement, that is, both WP:SIGCOV and WP:INDEPTH are not satisfied as required by GNG, the third source is definitely not SIGCOV. The Guardian source is no longer a flagship source as it was once here in Nigeria and are one of such sources that should be used with caution as more often than not they fail to expressly disclose when a piece is sponsored. I honestly do not see how GNG is met, you can ask me more questions if you need further clarifications. Celestina007 (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 You seem more familiar with this than me so I'll defer to you.Citing (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this is UPE, having looked at the editing, although it may involve COI. I'd also tend to say the subject is likely notable, given this `large array of articles in the Guardian.ng, although I am not entirely sure of how to judge the reliability of the publication. --- Possibly ☎ 08:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change that to Keep. He is widely mentioned and quoted in the press, according to a Google news search. The fact that he was kidnapped in 2011 as a political candidate also generated some press; I added a few sources for that. I have the overall impression that he is a well-known figure who appears frequently in Nigerian and African news sources. --- Possibly ☎ 08:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly, the problem is none of those sources counts towards notability, allow me explain, the first source isn’t SIGCOV, it describes events around him but not he himself with WP:INDEPTH, the second source linked has no editorial oversight, the third and fourth source are yet to possess a reputation for fact checking the remaining two sources also do not have a reputation for fact checking, and more often than not, dubious sources as they fail to disclose when a piece is sponsored or not. The Nigerian media landscape is one I’m very much familiar with, I am happy to clarify things further if you require me too. Undoubtedly there are mentions here and there but not any that satisfy SIGCOV. I would have drawn an analysis table but I’m weak and still recovering from a surgery. I can state categorically that this is definitely an WP:ADMASQ. Celestina007 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly, sorry for the double ping, can you please take a look at this conversation, with Praxidicae pertaining the Nigerian Guardian source because lately the Guardian source is no longer considered de-facto reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: what you are saying does not sway me. I think there are quite obviously enough sources available for GNG. If you have clear evidence that this is an ADMASQ then that should go to the paid editing email. Paid editing on its own is not a reason to delete, as far as I know. It's a reason to examine and clean up, and then delete if notability fails. --- Possibly ☎ 17:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly, I’m not looking to sway you, I have brought this to AFD, if you can’t comprehend sources and tell a reliable source from a reliable piece or tell when a piece is a sponsored or an extended announcements not fulfilling SIGCOV, that’s really no concern of mine, it’s many people who can’t tell the difference so I’m unfazed by your rationale. Oh well as is customary, in the famous words of Rosguill When you take an article to AFD your job as an NPR is completed I have unwatched the page as my job here is completed. Celestina007 (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can read sources just fine, thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 17:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has been cleaned up and much of the promotional content has been removed. With coverage found in Google search which include from Guardian, The Nation, Sunnews to mention a few show the subject passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BASIC, also his conferment as the Mayegun Aare Onakakanfo of Yorubaland 1 2 also contribute to his inclusion. The subject is a well-known lawyer here in Nigeria especially with his very vocal critics on issues and against the government; lastly, considering that the article was brought here exactly 10 minutes the article creator created it isn't fair enough as a proper WP:Before would have led to the nominator improving it first or to draftify it and the accusation of UPE is unfound aswell as the rationale for the image was explained here and it's just a naive mistake of claiming own work. Kaizenify (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Masloff (fireboat)

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

I'm pretty sure that this fireboat, out of many thousands that exist throughout the world, isn't notable. Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the level of sourcing already present from a range of publications demonstrates that this boat is indeed notable. I have added an additional source. NemesisAT (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are from local papers and radio stations, except one from CBS but that isn't actually about the boat anyway. Black Kite (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It covers the need for the boat so I believe it should count towards establishing notability. As for the other sources, Pittsburgh is a large city covering a wide area. Regardless, WP:GNG doesn't appear to exclude local sources. There is WP:SIGCOV on this subject. NemesisAT (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep as we already have an extensive list of Fireboats, many of whom have their own articles, which means it would be hard to merge the Sophie Masloff article anywhere. It falls between two stools: the article is too well-referenced, and the boat is probably not un-notable enough, to be reduced to a single line mention in the Fireboats article; but Sophie Masloff doesn't appear to be quite as notable as some of the others. Incidentally, local newspapers are certainly reliable sources for something like this, and in a city the size of Pittsburgh count as denoting some importance to the subject. Elemimele (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to pass GNG (Strange nom rationle. Article needs infobox & c/e). Djflem (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Win Saagar

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

As far as I can tell, this person currently lacks the coverage required to pass WP:GNG/WP:BIO and his acting career has not yet reached the level required to pass WP:NACTOR. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No minimum coverage and lacks notable roles in multiple number of shows Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 05:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR with minimal coverage, lack of significant roles in multiple productions. Possible WP:UPE Ravensfire (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Science in Action (radio programme)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The only source is written by a BBC employee and the only independent source I could find is an article from The Press Gazette that only contains a trivial mention. The WP:PROD was removed without any reason provided. TipsyElephant (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The programme goes back over 60 years and it is still in production – see BBC Sounds. It is therefore the longest running radio programme about science, as documented and detailed in the Journal of Science Communication. As it is broadcast on the World Service, it has an international audience and so there is coverage in other languages such as Science et culture dans Science in Action (BBC World Service) and Discours médiatique spécialisé : la vulgarisation (popularisation) à la BBC Radio. See WP:BEFORE; WP:NEXIST and WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." For specific guidance, see WP:RPRGM which states that "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope)" The BBC's World Service satisfies this, as it broadcasts across the globe. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While RPRGM is in NMEDIA, which is looking like it's not aligned with consensus in other areas, this would still meet the GNG per Andrew Davidson. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:RPRGM with sources presented by Andrew. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The program is going on for a long time and satisfies WP:RPRGM per above. Alex-h (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Andrew above. /Julle (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW, nomination withdrawn and complete consensus to keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delores Robinson

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Robinson was elected as a fellow of the Geological Society of America, she therefore meets criterion 3 of WP:PROF. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the pass of #C3 noted above, her citation record [4] looks good enough to me for a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per C3, although since I'd already gone through the trouble of assessing her and her coauthors' Scopus metrics before refreshing this page I'll include them (if not for C3 she would have been a weak C1 delete from me). These are for her 40 coauthors with >9 papers:

Total citations: avg: 7304, med: 5041, Robinson: 2252.

Total papers: avg: 107, med: 100, R: 36.

h-index: avg: 37, med: 35, R: 20.

Top 5 papers: 1st: avg: 711, med: 438, R: 433. 2nd: avg: 482, med: 389, R: 404. 3rd: avg: 354, med: 292, R: 237. 4th: avg: 280, med: 220, R: 220. 5th: avg: 237, med: 193, R: 216.

Top first-author: avg: 478, med: 269, R: 220. JoelleJay (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fellow status is enough to meet WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FGSA meets criterion 3 of WP:NPROF. Edwardx (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a full prof. in a specialized field of geology with an h-index of 20 I think she meets WP:NPROF criteria #1, and with the status as an elected fellow of the Geological Society of America she meets NPROF #3, therefore the article should be retained. Netherzone (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Department chair and fellow of GSA more then enough for WP:NPROF. --Dystopos (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn seems like there is a general consensus on the notability, which is even more clear after the recent edits. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) dudhhr_Contribs 06:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelia Chase Brant

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

Non-notable homeopath PepperBeast (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bare bio gives no indications of notability: a female homeopathic doctor was not in itself so unusual at that time. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current stub is just a start. There are plenty more sources out there including History of homeopathy and its institutions in America; Women Doctors of the World; Women of Today; Dream within her hand – Life of Dr. Cornelia Chase Brant; A Vital Force: Women in American Homeopathy; &c. WP:NEXIST and WP:ATD therefore apply "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources ... If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 21:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability shown per NACADEMICS 6: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." She was dean (that is, the head) of the New York Medical College and Hospital for Women 1914-1918 at a time when no other medical facilities allowed women to intern, per Sylvain Cazalet "History of the New York Medical College and Hospital for Women". HouseOfChange (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no basis whatsoever to suggest that deans of medical schools are automatically notable and are exempt from needing significant coverage. Besides the NYMCHW not exactly being a major academic institution, the president would be the highest position, not dean. "Dream within her hand" is written by her children and is not independent. Andrew is lying to us when he says his Google Books hits are are useful sources, when in fact History of homeopathy and its institutions in America merely lists her as one of scores of graduates over the decades of the NYMNHW, Women of Today merely lists her as president of "Institute Fraternity, Medical Women of the American Institute of Homeopathy", and Women Doctors of the World merely mentions she wrote about the College in a footnote; A Vital Force is also just a passing mention. Andrew is perfectly capable of providing links, but when he doesn't, there's often no relevant significant coverage to be found. Reywas92^Talk 17:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strange personal attack because Reywas92 confirms that the subject does indeed appear in the sources that I listed. Of course, the sources vary in their usefulness but, for example, Women Doctors of the World confirms that the subject was dean of the New York Medical College and Hospital for Women. And, of course, these sources are not exhaustive as there seems to be plenty more out there. For example, here's an interesting report which is worth linking because it is fully accessible. Note that it describes the subject as "Head of Women's Medical College" so she passes WP:NACADEMIC, as stated by HouseOfChange. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does not. It has never been held that any dean of a medical college is automatically notable and exempt from needing any significant coverage. The fact that a name "appears" in a source is completely irrelevant to its suitability for establishing notability and you deliberately obfuscate the discussion with such useless titles. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: So far, GNG has not been established. Has NACADEMICS 6? That is a two-part question. 1) Did Brant hold "a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post" at New York Medical College and Hospital for Women? Clearly per RS she did, being called interchangeably dean and head in various sources. (The head of the 19th c Woman's Medical College of Pennsylvania also has the title "dean" and every woman who held that post has an article.) 2) Was NYMCHW at that time "a major academic institution"? As one of only two medical schools to train women at that time, it clearly played a significant role in 19th century American medicine. Another indication of contemporary opinion is Andrew Davidson's latest citation, where Brant is one of two women physicians interviewed on a controversial issue. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"and every woman who held that post has an article" And??? Every woman who held that post also has significant coverage in several sources such as their own substantive entries in Notable American Women, Women in the Biological Sciences, and The Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science. I know you're better than that junk argument. The list of NYMCWC graduates suggests that there weren't more than about 50 students there at one time – that would not be "a major academic institution" as implied by NACADEMIC, at least not to the point at which we can say, nah, screw significant coverage! Whatever the school's role, her role is apparently not important enough to get anything here or in other substantive content about her. Columbia says the school was closed in 1918 "by its president and board of trustees", so in that case she would not hold the highest-level post as dean. Reywas92^Talk 06:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I am not convinced she meets C6 -- the institution she was dean of apparently isn't notable enough for an article, and it is not clear that dean is the highest position anyway (that would be the parent university's president in most schools). There were many medical schools training women by 1904, and certainly by 1914, so the assertion that it was one of only two schools to train women is surely a miscomprehension of the newspaper article linked above (which says the hospital is one of only two to treat women exclusively). I also could not validate that "[at this time] no other medical facilities allowed women to intern", but regardless the source for that claim is allegedly Cornelia Brant herself according to a user-generated/self-published article on rootsweb (the same unreliable source in the article) which was then rehosted on the homeopathy SPS cited above (Sylvain Cazalet). That same article also makes a distinction between the president and dean of the school. The only RS discussing her is therefore the piece in the newspaper, which is not usable for claims of notability due to it being an interview. I am certainly open to reconsidering if actual SIGCOV or more compelling evidence of C6 is provided. JoelleJay (talk) 06:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep, preference is still strongly for a redirect to the biography instead. But one of the sources found by SusunW does appear to be SIGCOV and combined with the NYT obit probably elevates her to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 1. WP:NPROF is typically not so useful for assessing notability of someone who worked in the first half of the 20th century. That probably leaves GNG; note that sources are harder to find on someone active in the pre-internet age. 2. A sensible alternative to deletion might be a redirect to a stub on the book (biography) by her daughter, which appears to be possibly notable: there's a review in Kirkus [5], and a short summary in this book [6], which I take as being of roughly similar weight to a review. Given the difficulty of finding sources for a book published in 1940, I think this might be enough for WP:NBOOK. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Russ Woodroofe, yes this is a sensible solution; we could also use the content to expand the existing section of NYMC on the Women's College. I agree that NPROF is really not applicable to pre-~1970s academics and notability should revert to GNG; it would be helpful if this distinction was somewhere in the guideline. JoelleJay (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Cornelia C. Brant, 95, Dies; Pioneer Woman Physician". New York Herald Tribune. 1959-03-10. Archived from the original on 2021-07-07. Retrieved 2021-07-07 – via ProQuest.
  The obituary notes: "Dr. Brant was one of the first three women appointed to the staff of a New York City public hospital. This was in 1916 when the late Charities Commissioner John Kingsbury appointed them to the medical staff of the Cumberland Street Hospital in Brooklyn. She was also dean of the New York Medical College and Hospital for Women, since consolidated with the Flower-Fifth Avenue Hospital. During World War I she organized a woman's base hospital unit for service overseas."
2. "Cornelia Brant, A Physician, Dies. General Practioner, 95, Had Served in Brooklyn—Led Medical College Here". The New York Times. 1959-03-10. Archived from the original on 2021-07-07. Retrieved 2021-07-07 – via ProQuest.
  The obituary notes: "Dr. Brant did not enter the medical school until she was 36 years old, when she was married and had three children of school age. Despite these formidable drawbacks, she graduated at the head of her class. After leaving the college she spent three years studying electro-therapeutic medicine, then a new branch of the physician's art, before entering general practice."
3. "The Quaker Girl Who Dreamed of Becoming a Doctor". The New York Times. 1940-04-28. Archived from the original on 2021-07-07. Retrieved 2021-07-07 – via ProQuest.
  The article reviews Dream Within Her Hand the Life of Dr. Cornelia Chase Brant. The article notes: "It is the story of a singularly winning young girl, brought up ina liberal Quaker household, who had an odd dream of becoming a doctor, and who determinedly went back to that dream as middle-age was approaching, when the eldest of her three children was 12 and the youngest nearly 7."
4. Book reviews:
  1. "Dream within her hand: the life of Dr Cornelia Chase Brant (Book Review)". The Saturday Review of Literature. Vol. 22. 1940-05-11. p. 20.
  2. "Dream within her hand: the life of Dr Cornelia Chase Brant (Book Review)". Booklist. Vol. 36. 1940-05-01. p. 343.
  3. "Dream within her hand: the life of Dr Cornelia Chase Brant (Book Review)". New York Herald Tribune. 1940-04-28.
    The review notes: "The best part of the book describes [the] Newark life. When the authors come nearer to the present they encounter the difficulties of all those who write biographies of living friends. They never really come to grips with Dr. Brant's medical career, beyond recording some of its triumphs. . . But if the authors are sketchy in their handling of their 'heroine's' professional career, they never forget their main theme, the maintenance of the delicate equilibrium of a happy married life, and although they err on the side of sentimentality, they have various interesting things to say about this difficult and rewarding art."
  4. Dowd, William A. (1940-07-13). "Dream within her hand: the life of Dr Cornelia Chase Brant (Book Review)". America.
  5. Worthy, Pauline (1940-06-16). "Pioneer Woman Doctor". The News & Observer. Archived from the original on 2021-07-07. Retrieved 2021-07-07 – via Newspapers.com.
  6. Ross, Lillian (1940-04-27). "Dr. Brant Biography Life of Doctor-Mother. Brooklyn Woman Raises Children, Treats Patients in 'Dream Within Her Hand'". Brooklyn Eagle. Archived from the original on 2021-07-07. Retrieved 2021-07-07 – via Newspapers.com.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cornelia Chase Brant to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The links you provide are the same obituary published in two different newspapers (with slight modifications) of uncertain independence, and reviews of the biography. These do not demonstrate notability of her, but of the book (otherwise we would have articles on every single book character). Per Russ Woodroofe I would support an article on the book, which would probably permit more coverage of her on Wikipedia than a standalone article on her since the material in the book, not being independent of the subject, would be less DUE in the latter case. JoelleJay (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @JoelleJay: The New York Times obituary and the New York Herald obituary are not "the same" except in recounting the same remarkable features of the same life. They are two independent RS expressing an opinion that the person who just died was notable. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HouseOfChange, they have identical structure and almost zero differences in actual content:

NYT v NYHT obits

Both:

Physician who practiced in Brooklyn until 20 years ago
Died today at her home at 17 Hamilton Ave.
Was 95.
Wife of Henry L Brant, a lawyer.
NYT: Received MD from NYMC and Hospital for Women in 1903.
One of three women appointed to staff of Cumberland Street Hospital in Brooklyn, in 1916. NYHT: [additionally mentions "Charities Commissioner John Kingsbury appointed them"]
Dean of NYMC and Hospital for Women, which was later consolidated with Flower and Fifth Avenue Hospitals.
"In World War I she organized a women's base hospital unit for service [NYT: in France] [NYHT: overseas]."

Slight prose differences:

NYT: "Dr. Brant did not enter the medical school until she was 36 years old, when she was married and had three children of school age. Despite these formidable drawbacks, she graduated at the head of her class." NYHT: "Confronted in her youth with the choice between medicine and matrimony, she chose matrimony, and it was not until she was thirty-six and the mother of three school-age children that she applied herself finally to the study of medicine. Despite family distractions, she was graduated in 1904 at the head of her class."

NYT: "After leaving the college she spent three years studying electro-therapeutic medicine, then a new branch of the physician's art, before entering general practice." NYHT: "She devoted another three years to studies in the then comparatively new field of electric therapy, which became her specialty."

NYT: "In 1940 the book "Dream Within Her Hand," a biography of Dr. Brant written by a daughter, Mrs. A. Glentworth Birdsall, in collaboration with Alice Ross Colver, was published. It told of Dr. Brant's success in combining home life with a career." NYHT: "In 1940 her daughter, Mrs. Helen Brant Birdsall, collaborated with Alice Ross Colver in writing "Dream Within Her Hand," a biography of the physician, which stressed her success in combining home life with a career."

NYT: [additionally mentions: "Dr. Brant was formerly active in Brooklyn women's club life and had served as president of the Brooklyn Woman's Club."]

NYT: "Mrs. Birdsall and another daughter, Mrs. Hazel Babcock, survive Mrs. Brant, who also leaves seven grandchildren and sixteen great-grandchildren." NYHT: "Surviving, besides Mrs. Birdsall, is another daughter, Mrs. Hazel Brant Babcock; seven grandchildren, and sixteen great-grandchildren."

One of these is very clearly a derivative of the other, and therefore should not be considered independent. JoelleJay (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This analysis actually demonstrates that the obituaries were done separately because they each contain a fact which does not appear in the other. Note also the timing – the obituaries were both published on the day after the subject's death and so there was limited opportunity for copying as there was no Internet, search engines or cut/paste computing in those days. In those days, such newspapers maintained their own libraries of cuttings which would naturally tend to contain similar material. "Until the mid-1990s, almost every media organisation – from the smallest local newspaper to national TV stations – maintained a cuttings collection. These libraries consisted of scrappy folders full of articles, arranged in a bewildering classification system. Only the librarian knew how it worked. Whether it was a simple fact-check, background information for an interview or just searching for story ideas, the journalist would put in a request and hope to walk away with a bulging file." Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, unless all the info was contained in one or two cuttings held by both newspapers, the probability of these two obituaries arising by chance is exceptionally low. Most likely there was a press release of some sort that the newspapers just closely paraphrased. JoelleJay (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probability doesn't come into it – if the obituaries had been very different then JoelleJay would be complaining about that too. Such guesswork is just bias and it's irrelevant for notability for which the key point is that both organs decided that the subject was worth covering. Anyway, I'm going to watch Obit which might provide more insight... Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- if the obituaries had been very different then JoelleJay would be complaining about that too. What a bizarre example of ABF. I'd also like to know what prior cuttings contained the information on her death that both newspapers managed to include almost verbatim and in the same order... In particular, they both use the biography by her daughter (ending with the phrase "success in combining home life with a career") to segue into listing her other daughter and descendants. JoelleJay (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources listed by Cunard would indicate that WP:GNG are met. Niftysquirrel (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per Cunard. Further, the subject appears to be of importance to women's history within medicine in the United States. The New York Times description of her as a "pioneer" should be a clue to her importance within the field of women's studies.4meter4 (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dean of only one of a few medical schools that allowed women to enroll or intern is quite a historical significance. That can not be argued. The obituaries provided are okay for biographical information about the subject. They are both independent and reliable. The books are not independent but are secondary and would provide additional biographical information. Sometimes we have to look at the overall totality of the significance of a subjects life and accomplishments, especially when dealing with those pre-1970's. Applying common sense to what we do know about her (she was called a "pioneer" by the NYT) allows me to see how she is notable and should be included. --ARoseWolf 16:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ARoseWolf, just a minor note, but she was dean of one of the few medical schools that were exclusively for women; there were many, many medical schools accepting women by that time. JoelleJay (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please provide your sources to back up the claim of exactly how many is many colleges that gave women medical degrees at the time of her career please and thank you. --ARoseWolf 23:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - ARoseWolf and JoelleJay This article provides a general overview of the status of women in medicine at that time. Yes there were many institutions training women, but simultaneously there were many more institutions denying women admittance; particularly in the Eastern part of the United States. The West Coast was much more progressive about training women than the East. New York was not a friendly state for women in medicine, so Brant and her college were important.4meter4 (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am very aware of the difficulties that women had of obtaining a medical degree in the era of time she lived in and before. I've written articles on Indigenous women who sought medical degrees to help their people on the respective reservations. In the late 1880's to early 1900's only a handful of institutions offered women a medical degree. Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania was only the second institution in the world to offer women a M.D. degree around the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries. Offering some training and actually offering a medical degree are two different things entirely. At the time of Cornelia it was still a relatively new thing for women to become certified doctors. While Cornelia was not a doctor she did earn a medical degree, was a general practitioner and became the head of an institution that offered medical degrees and training to women at a time when this was still a rather new notion. Her career spanned a time in which women gained the right to vote, among other rights only afforded to their spouses prior to. --ARose Wolf 13:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I take it you didn't actually read the article, as your statements don't match the detailed historical record in the article. You aren't doing yourself any favors towards establishing credibility of your statements by ignoring evidence that contradicts what you are claiming. Regardless, you and I are both in agreement that this article should be kept.4meter4 (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        You would be wrong, I have read the article, in depth. I don't appreciate your attack on my competency or the assertion that I would comment or give my opinion on the notability of a specific article without reading it and being familiar with it. You haven't provided any evidence on what constitutes "many more institutions" in your statement. I invite you to prove that anything I said is not factual. She did earn a medical degree, she was a general practitioner and she was the head of an institution that offered medical degrees to women at a time when, as you pointed out, New York was not a friendly state for women in medicine. She also did have a career that spanned from the late 1800's to the early to mid 1900's. Women gained the right to vote in 1920 with the passing of the Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. To find the statement and source for the Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania you can look at the article on Isabel Cobb. I'm not asking for an apology for your assumption of bad faith on my part by stating that I have made false claims and ignored evidence that contradicted anything I have said. There has been no evidence provided that directly contradicted anything I said. I believe it is imperative that anyone commenting on an AfD become knowledgeable with the content of the article in which they are suggesting a course of action on. I did my due diligence in this case and now I am walking away. Please consult WP:AGF on the how an editor should approach other editors when interacting with them. --ARose Wolf 15:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Sigh. I think you need to calm down. I think you may have missed this [This URL linked article in my post above; which is what I was referring to. Not the article on Cornelia Chase Brant. It's a little hard to believe you read it when your statements contradict the evidence before our eyes. The article is pretty clear about the rise of co-educational medical schools at state universities in the 1880s and 1890s in the the United States, and the proliferation of women's medical schools as well in this time period. I agree with you the New York was not a friendly state towards women. I said the exact same thing earlier in this conversation. However, I disagree with the factual accuracy of the following statements you made: 1."Late 1880's to early 1900's only a handful of institutions offered women a medical degree." (not true based on evidence in the article; a significant percentage of schools were including women including state universities which were becoming co-ed in that time period) 2. "Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania was only the second institution in the world to offer women a M.D. degree around the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries." (not true; that school began conferring degrees in the 1850s (see Woman's Medical College of Pennsylvania); and the article shows an exponential increase in women's medical schools and co-educational state medical schools in the succeeding decades of the latter half the 19th century). 3. "At the time of Cornelia it was still a relatively new thing for women to become certified doctors." (Sort of true. She was 50 years after the first women doctors, and the article states "The number of women doctors increased substantially between 1870 and 1900, from about 500 to about 7,000." " Four percent of all medical graduates in 1905 were women, but women constituted only 2.6% of medical graduates in 1915.") Having graduated in 1903 she was after these thousands of other women, and among the hundreds if not thousands of women who graduated with medical degrees in 1903. Flexner reports that 28,000 medical degrees were conferred in 1904, so assuming the number remained constant a year earlier and 4% was likely similar, that would mean approximately 1,120 women were awarded a medical degree in the United States the year she graduated. Still an impressive achievement for the time, but not exceptionally rare event.)4meter4 (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - ARoseWolf, my comment was to rebut your statement that there were only a few medical schools allowing women to enroll or intern. I am not (and was never) challenging that her position was still tremendously important, although until recently we didn't have the in-depth reliable sources to support a standalone article on her.
      To answer your question: by 1904 61% (97/160) of US medical schools accepted women. JoelleJay (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pre-internet subject, i.e. information is not likely to be digitized. This review in the Ohio State Medical Journal of her biography indicates she was a pioneering woman x-ray specialist. That she was indeed involved in such work is confirmed here, and here, here. While the biography was written by family, this review indicates it has a bibliography of secondary sources included. (I have no access to a library, but someone who does could easily verify that). Newspapers.com confirms there are 3,081 articles about "Cornelia Chase Brant" between 1908 and 1959; 1,195 for "Cornelia C. Brant" during the same period; 4,374 for "Dr. Cornelia Brant" over that period. Clearly we have sufficient evidence over time of her having been noted for both her club work and as a physician. For example [7], [8],[9] are all significant articles; whereas this (mentions that she was founder of a prominent social club) and this (confirms she was also a speaker and president of another social club) are less detailed. Bottom line we meet WP:Basic and probably weakly GNG. SusunW (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SusunW, I appreciate your digging up sources -- the profile you link in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle might be enough alongside the obituary to meet GNG. However I do not think the description of the court case she was in, and definitely not the Des Moines Register clipping, are SIGCOV of her. JoelleJay (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay, as we have discussed before multiple sources giving different information can be combined to achieve significant coverage. If I had time, I could on the basis of my search in newspapers.com prove that her club involvement alone meets sigcov. (Though she is of far more import for posterity because of her medical stature.) However, more coverage for this AfD is unnecessary. We have sufficient sources verified to show adequate independent sources to write a detailed biography. SusunW (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW, I interpreted your comment For example [3], [4],[5] are all significant articles as claiming each of those articles alone was SIGCOV; sorry if I was mistaken. JoelleJay (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay, you are correct that I worded it poorly. I was in a rush to finish an article I have been working on for several days, which I didn't manage. Maybe tomorrow. Sorry for that, but no matter how poorly I wrote that, you can see that there are multiple sources giving different information about her that add up to sigcov. SusunW (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and the sources listed by Cunard. Also a plausible case for WP:PROF#C6 as head of a standalone medical school (the existence of a board and a president of the board does not change this; C6 applies to, in business terms, the CEO, not the board of directors). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. I believe that the obituaries suffices to meet WP:BASIC. I think that they are sufficiently independent of one another -- after all, there are only so many things you can say in an obit. As they looks in part to be local news (albeit in large metropolitan area), I don't think the case here is so strong, but I think it's enough to pass the bar, especially on a historical figure like this. Other sources: The biography is not independent (as co-authored by the subject's daughter), but is WP:SIGCOV and may be used with caution to fill in details. The remaining sources listed by Cunard comprise reviews of the book (unless I'm missing something). I don't believe in the WP:NPROF C6 case, but one notability criterion is enough. I do think that there is a substantial case to merge this article into an article on the biography (which has a much clearer pass of our notability criteria with its many reviews), but as this article is much improved over when it was nominated for deletion, I don't think that is so clear cut as it was earlier. The homeopathy aspects may require watchlisting for WP:FRINGE editors. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Russ Woodroofe neither national nor large metropolitan news is "better" than local news. Circulation (quantity) has little to do with editorial excellence (quality). Pre-internet sources must be judged with different eyes than post-internet sources, when it became much easier to distribute information. Local newspapers are likely to be the few sources at the time that would have covered women or ethnic news, as academics did not broadly study these groups until after the 1970s. Major metropolitan newspapers focused on broad topics and often limited the coverage they gave to these groups or relegated them to fluff pages. Thus, to find the type of information one needs to develop sigcov, local newspapers, those affiliated with specific newswire services (such as the Associated Negro Press, La Prensa, etc.), often are the only sources to cover the accomplishments and issues faced by under-represented groups. They were instrumental the development of agency for socially constrained groups by "providing leadership, solidifying the community, and furthering its cultural survival".p 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusunW (talk • contribs)

I'm upgrading my !vote to Keep. I still think the obits provide only a fairly weak pass. On further consideration, however, I've become convinced that certain of the book reviews constitute WP:SIGCOV of the subject here (and not only of the book). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Basic and G-Notability: multiple positions held, multiple pioneering feats attained, sig-coverage in newspapers, obits from at least two competing newspapers, other data as shown above and in her article by recently added RS. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:PROF#C6, thanks to the excellent sources listed above supplied by Cunard, SusunW and others. Netherzone (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources listed in the conversation above. /Julle (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Yupik (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm amazed this afd was not withdrawn as soon as the NYT obit was found; I'm especially amazed that there continued to be objections to considering it as a sufficient source, and requests for additional sources. One of the firmest pillars of notability for biographies, is that a full editorial NYT obit is sufficient by itself to show notability -- at least for the 20th and 21st century. I cannot remember a decision in the 14+ years I have been here that went otherwise, except possible for minor society figures without an actual career. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Whore of Wall Street

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

Non-notable erotic film series, lacking significant coverage, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 18:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep as the film is discussed in this Las Vegas Sun article, plus Christopher Doyle seems to know about it according to The Guardian. A GNews search also gave me a Daily Mail result about the film, but we all know how trustworthy that source is. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFILM and GNG. Being mentioned in an interview is not an in-depth discussion in a RS. There is some discussion in a porno-industry site but that's not doing it for me. I'm not going to delve too deep to save my search history, but it's pretty evidence the plot (much of the article) is copied from somewhere. In any case, does not appear notable. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, this is tough as it appears XBIZ is a reliable enough source, plus the citations 👨x🐱 mentioned above, but I just do not think there is enough for its own article, especially not just from passing mentions. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per El cid.4meter4 (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to How to Train Your Dragon. Sandstein 07:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of the Boneknapper Dragon

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

Non-notable short film, does not have any standalone notability, only mentioned as existing as a short on a DVD, should be merged with How to Train Your Dragon article per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 00:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to How to Train Your Dragon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to How to Train Your Dragon. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to clear the record, in addition to be an extra on the DVD of the first film, it was released independently and in an anthology set of short films. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weekend Sexcapades

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

Non-notable erotic film, lacking significant coverage or other indications of notability per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 18:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of reliable sources coverage for this film. For example it has no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes, and does not pass WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails not only NFILM but probably GNG as well. I found no reliable sources, only database entries and a single tv listing (which is a short passing mention). Anonymous 7481 (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article restored to useful revision, added {{otheruses|Ravi (name)}}. As it was it would qualify for CSD A7, but since there was a better version I restored that. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raavi

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

Article is not notable and is unsourced. Ibn Daud (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination fixed. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but restore revision [10]. This page was a surname, then a font, and then it seems to have been vandalised. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ravi (name), which is an alternate spelling of the same name with a decent list article. I'm opposed to keeping with the previous revision as I doubt the information in it. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The existing version clearly does not meet WP:GNG, I am not familiar with usage of the name, and my research was inconclusive. Both the 'restore previous version' and the 'redirect to Ravi (name)' suggestions are viable. But I can't decide which I like best.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD got accidentally de-transcluded from the log page as a result of a self-reverted relisting on June 8, and thus sat entirely unnoticed for almost a month.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renu Raj

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

Subject occupies an administrative government position, not really notable per WP:NPOLITICIAN, and for WP:GNG purposes the coverage seems fairly WP:ROUTINE. Much coverage is made of her passing a civil service exam, although I have no way of knowing why that would be notable; even those who pass the world's most difficult exam don't all merit articles here. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see notices of promotions etc., articles based on statements by the subject, and an article based on a statement by her mother. And she is no doubt a very competent, intelligent, and likable person. But no evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see if "Director of Urban Affairs" in Kerala state is "inherently notable". ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 05:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See, Renu Raj IAS becomes 16th Devikulam sub-collector to be transferred in 9 years, Renu Raj, the Kerala IAS officer who refused to bow down to political pressure, IAS officer Renu Raj summarily transferred from RDO post, CPI (M) MLA ‘regrets’ insulting Renu Raj IAS, women’s panel files suo motu case, Renu Raj cancels four fake title deeds in Munnar before moving from position, ‘I can proudly say that I’ve not wasted even a day’: Devikulam sub-collector Renu Raj, Renu Raj makes the State proud, Malayali lady doctor clinches 2nd rank in civil services. Hope these passes WP:GNG. Pinging Beccaynr for detailed valuation. 106.197.30.1 (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC) — 106.197.30.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Anachronist, to your knowledge, UPSC - Union Public Service Commission exam is the most toughest exams in the world.106.197.30.1 (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC) — 106.197.30.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Not according to sources I found. It's a tough exam, but not the toughest. And it's irrelevant. Passing a professional exam isn't a claim to notability sufficient for inclusion here. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agreed the UPSC entrance exam is one of the competitive exams in India But Wikipedia is not the platform of listing the candidates who have cleared the tough exams. The subject does not pass WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. And most of the coverage seems like a WP:ROUTINE. GermanKity (talk) 09:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's quite a lot of coverage here, she's been the subject of coverage as the first woman to hold a particular office, she's won a major governmental award, and she holds a state-level office (not an elected one, so doesn't automatically meet NPOL, but I think overall this tends towards GNG). Furius (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She's one of many who won the same award (see G-Files awards). Being the first woman to hold an administrative role is interesting but not notable if the coverage of that fact is simply mentioned and not covered; the only source in the article mentions it only in the title and the source is an interview (primary source). ~Anachronist (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator’s convincing policy based rationale.4meter4 (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Holden

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

See issues. MrEarlGray (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No useful independent sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Purely promotional. I'd say it probably meets CSD G11. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 04:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. Yinglong999 (talk)
Delete Fails WP:GNG, but even if it did pass it's such a promotional article it would likely have to be deleted via WP:TNT and then recreated. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search didn't find evidence that he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or any SNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I strongly believe it should be deleted because reliable sources are week and this article written just for advertisement purpose. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian David Gilbert

AfDs for this article:

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

While I'm a big fan, Gilbert doesn't meet our notability criteria for journalists or creative professionals. The coverage of him is largely trivial or tertiary coverage about his work. The work, which is humorous, does not make him an "important figure" in his field, nor is it widely cited by his peers. There's just not enough information on Gilbert, at this stage, for an article. Can (and should) be revisited a few years down the line. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 15:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 15:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Delete (per Czar and ImaginesTigers, I've realized my following argument isn't valid Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 00:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)) I was the one who accepted this article at AfC. I did this because I believe it passes WP:GNG. Here are four reliable^{(correct if I'm wrong)} sources that mention the subject outside of a passing mention: [11], [12], [13], [14]. While he does fail WP:ARTIST, that doesn't mean he is not notable: "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below". Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 18:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for responding. I disagree with these as indicating Gilbert's wider notability (which came up at the article's previous deletion.

NintendoWire is a fan-site with no consensus to allow biographical citations (but can be used for, say, reviews of games or gameplay).
My bad, disregard that one. Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 01:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The AV Club is reliable, but their article is about one of his videos more than it is about him. If you have a look, it mentions that the video was co-created by Gilbert and his partner. It isn't about Gilbert—it’s about his video (which is, admittedly, pretty funny). You've also linked that article twice, so you may have mistakenly copy and pasted the article twice.
He's an artist / creative professional. Why would any media coverage not be about his art? As for that fourth source, my mistake, sorry. I had been meaning to link this Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 01:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for MXDWN, it’s a very small site that has never been asked about on WP:RSN.
Unsure why website largeness is reportedly a factor in a website being a reliable source. MXDWN has editorial oversight and is a secondary source independent of the subject.

That withstanding, I do still consider all of these to be primarily about his videos, even if they were good sources. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, but I disagree. Can you link me to a wiki policy stating that sources partly about someone's work do not show notability? ^{if there is i'll change to support.} One could argue he is only notable for a single event, but the sources are about different videos and different works so that doesn't apply. I found another source, so there are still 4 good sources (3 if you don't want to include the new one): AV club, MXDWN, Twin Galaxies, Hard Drive Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 22:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcguy15: Single event has nothing to do with his content, so not sure why you're raising it. For Brian David Gilbert to be independently notable, there has to be significant coverage of him. Not articles about his videos—which is what all of these are. I'm not sure what you mean by asking for a specific policy. This is what "significant coverage" means—the example given is pretty similar to this (a book about Bill Clinton indicates his notability; a mention of Bill Clinton's band in an article about him is not evidence of the band being noteworthy). In this case, Gilbert's videos may have received some attention (although from unreliable or problematic sources), but he has not been addressed "directly and in detail". Additionally, as I said above and as Czar says below, nor are all of these reliable sources. The AV Club one, sure, but it’s actually trivial; in no way is that appropriate to source a BLP. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've realized I'm in the wrong here. Sorry about my confusions, and thanks for helping me understand. I'll be sure to be more thorough in future AfC reviews. Voted for delete above. Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 00:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings at all; that's why we discuss. Thanks for being collegial. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 01:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage across multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Hard Drive and Twin Galaxies are unreliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. MXDWN does not have any hallmarks/pedigree of editorial oversight, fact-checking, or quality (listing a masthead has no bearings on the publication's internal processes and external reputation). There are had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search besides the A.V. Club "article",[15] which is honestly more of a gag, having little substance we can use to write an encyclopedia article on the subject himself. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 21:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per czar's arguments. Throast (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bare Feet Impressions

AfDs for this article:

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

Was soft deleted as a result of the last AfD, then recreated, and then moved to draft. Was declined at AfC, then moved in anyway. Bottom line is that this is a promotional piece regarding a film which does not meet WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly a promotional piece which was recreated even after no improvements of any kind appear to have been made to the article since its last deletion. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let Down (Radiohead song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. This is a song from a highly notable album (OK Computer), but I don't believe it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. The article mainly comprises a brief summary of the lyrical origin, some facts about how it wasn't released as a single, had no music video and is rarely performed live, and some info about cover versions - paling in comparison to the scope of articles about other OK Computer singles, like Paranoid Android. Notable coverage of this song is already adequately covered in the OK Computer article. Popcornfud (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Having no music video, single release, and no live performances does not automatically indicate a lack of notability. Coverage and professional analysis indicates notability. Searches on Google Scholar and Google Books and the previews of their results indicates discussions and varying viewpoints on the song alone. Professional critic and journalist Mac Randall is quoted in multiple results exclaiming the song to be "a tremendous achievement and one of Radiohead's most intoxicating creations". There's an entire section about the production, composition, and lyrics of this track in this book about "Classic Rock Tracks" of all eras. This section of a book about the history of all Western music goes into detail about the song itself, while this academic journal piece features pages upon pages upon pages of analysis of the song's composition and how it relates to the composition of rock music in general. Additionally, lines of the song are quoted in this academic piece of cultural analysis that isn't even about anything Radiohead-relateed, but rather about the general concept of religion, utopia and globalization in our world, and this book section about the structure of human awareness in society. This academic piece that has several parts analyzing the song also reports (in pages 3 to 4) that Billboard magazine claimed this track to be the best song of the year (of all bands, of all artists, of all genres, of all albums). All of this, in addition to Papermag and The Ringer rankings of these songs on the lists of best all-time songs in Radiohead's entire discography, indicate notability independent from being an OK Computer track. There's also the fact the the album article isn't covering even a 20th of the analysis and available info about all of its specific tracks, and already is WP:TOOBIG. While the article is very short and needs expansion, the obvious solution here is to expand this article and split the album article into those about specific songs, which is already what we do with most Beatles albums, not to delete or merge into an already unnavigably-long album article. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- HumanxAnthro, thanks for this analysis. The thing that most makes me say "hmm" here is the suggestion that the OKC article is so big we ought to split it anyway. Pinging @Brandt Luke Zorn:, who may have some thoughts. Popcornfud (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Popcornfud: I agree with HumanxAnthro that "Let Down" passes muster for notability on its face. It's probably the best candidate to have its own article among any non-single from OK Computer, followed closely by "Exit Music (For a Film)" then somewhat more distantly by the rest. While it was never a retail single, it was touted in Billboard as the "first commercial single" from the album for its release to radio. Even the rarity of live performances, to me, seems to flip from a negative to a positive because there is commentary on the rarity itself, which presents the song as a conspicuous absence from concerts rather than merely forgotten—I've already added a little bit about its live rarity and logistical difficulty of performing live.
    I would very much like to see an expansion of the article along the lines of what HxA has pitched. I'm somewhat ambivalent about the notion of creating song articles for the express purpose of shortening the OK Computer article, but I think there is certainly enough out there about "Let Down" that stands on its own two legs outside the umbrella of the album article.
    FWIW, I looked into the claim that Billboard called "Let Down" their SOTY and it's somewhat overstated. That article's bibliography does not seem to cite the article in question, but I found this end-of-year article from the column "The Modern Age", which seems to be centered on music that would chart as "Modern Rock" at the time, in which columnist Bradley Bambarger names "Let Down" his choice for song of the year. It's not "song of the year" across all genres, but still worth mentioning, and a good example of a fact that wouldn't bear mentioning in the OK Computer article but helps demonstrate the song's independent notability. —BLZ · talk 20:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationale/sourcing given by HumanxAnthro. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HumanxAnthro. QuestFour (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HumanxAnthro and BLZ. DMT biscuit (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maths-In-A-Box

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

Unable to find any reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of this 80s television show (it shares its name with more modern maths resources for children). Most coverage is simply acknowledging it existed. Fails WP:GNG. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 13:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 13:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 13:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:GNG due to sources being unreliable and insignificant. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 04:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nitesh003 (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Siamoto Scross

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

A non-notable scooter; no sources are included in the article, and a search for sources reveals nothing that approaches the criteria of WP:GNG, with most sources being wiki's of one sort or another.

It is possible that sources exist in Italian, and a search focused on such sources would be appreciated. BilledMammal (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Hartman Edwards

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

An autobiographical article covering an American producer and writer. The individual doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR, while a search for sources turn up no non-trivial mentions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miho Fukuhara discography. ✗plicit 13:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hanabi Sky

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

While the article does appear to meet WP:Albums #2, it doesn't appear like there will ever be enough content to justify the article being a standalone article, per the overriding criteria of WP:Albums.

As the singles are already listed within Miho Fukuhara discography, merger is not necessary and so redirection is the most appropriate action.

I am also nominating the following articles for redirection, under the same - and in some cases greater, as they don't meet WP:Albums #2 - reasoning:

BilledMammal (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Light Foot Militia

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

Not notable, one single RS reference to a single event. Fails GNG Pipsally (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage apart from that one event in 2015. 15 (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails all three of the notability criteria it qualifies for: WP:NONPROFIT, WP:NORG, and WP:GNG. Seems to have only have appeared in the local news for the one event in 2015. Curbon7 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastián Benfeld Garcés

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

Gets some brief mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Logs: 2021-05 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jourdan Serderidis

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

May have missed something, but the article fails WP:GNG - the only coverage I could find on him was from primary websites such as WRC.com, interviews, or blog posts. I can also not verify the WRC-Trophy results, at least on Wikipedia. SportingFlyer T·C 14:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 14:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 14:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORT. -Cupper52^Discuss! 11:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete for [A7]. Article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 04:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Zainulbhai

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

Advertisement. References do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Most of the references are company announcement/PR or paid self published. Fails WP:GNG GermanKity (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh what? None of those references are company announcements or PR or paid self published. Most of them don't have anything to do with a company but are about the government. Did you even check the references let alone do a before search? The only article about a company in there is critical of the company. One of the references is also a piece in the Business Standard which provides more than significant coverage of his life and career. He is the chairman of one of the largest media conglomerates in India and his close association with Rajat Gupta is not something that would make it into an advertisement. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the in-depth Business Standard profile ([16]), there are several other Business Standard articles with non-trivial coverage of Zainulbhai: [17], [18], [19]. There is also coverage of Zainulbhai in other sources, eg [20], [21], [22], [23]. I consider this sufficient for WP:BASIC. userdude 01:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC); revised 01:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How did the deletion nominator determine it was an advertisement and paid editing? One can see third party independent sources used at this article, if they want to? userdude has already made a good case above for the article. Kent Warfield (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eritreans in Germany

AfDs for this article:

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

AfD'd several months ago, rather than reaching consensus for recreating, an editor insists on undoing the consensus of the recent AfD. Same rationale's as original AfD still exist. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The original rationales ("No sources, fails WP:GNG") are not valid criticisms of this article as it currently stands. If it is poorly cited, then improvement of the article should be encouraged, not deletion. This subject falls within Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, as there are many reliable sources (government organizations, intergovernmental organizations, news publications, scholarly articles, etc.) that provide significant coverage that is independent of the subject. As well, there are many similar pages regarding diaspora communities that set a precedent for a group of this size (which is, frankly, quite large) to have a Wikipedia article. Thiqq (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 05:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some reliable, in-depth coverage [24] and [25]. Borderline case and article should be improved, but coverage does exist. 15 (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV. This was an odd renomination as it’s clear the issue raised in the first AFD, namely an issue of sourcing, was adequately addressed in this recreation with the use of multiple quality sources and inline citations.4meter4 (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kinogo Pictures

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

Movie studio does not meet WP:NCORP- coverage is mostly WP:PASSING mentions in articles focussed on individual films. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesia Wveighlin

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

BLP does not meet WP:NBIO- coverage is largely puff-piece articles and interviews. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete- Fails WP:NBIO-founder of a non-notable company. -Cupper52^Discuss! 11:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen J. Flanagan

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

Unclear pass of WP:NPOL as per his political career or WP:ACADEMIC as per his research career. nearlyevil 665 08:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 08:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think his position as a named chair at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies may meet criteria 5 of WP:NPROF, but of course that is the only part of the entire article that is unsourced. Curbon7 (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the comment, I was able to find several sources (1) (2) (3) (4) conforming him holding the named chair position. As he held this distinction and it is confirmed this allows him to pass C5 and his page is valid because of it. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 03:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to elaborate as to why the Centre for Strategic and International Studies is a 'major institution of higher education and research'? Would the chairpersonship of any blue-linked think tank automatically denote notability? I'm asking because I'm not seeing much to confirm the Centre is anything but an above-average think tank institution. nearlyevil 665 04:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The wikilink in the first comment is a mispelling, the correct one is Center for Strategic and International Studies. The wikilink states "In the University of Pennsylvania's 2019 Global Go To Think Tanks Report, CSIS is ranked the number one think tank in the United States across all fields, the "Top Defense and National Security Think Tank" in the world, and the 4th best think tank in the world overall.". While yes, it's a think tank, it is a very noteworthy one and it's linked with Georgetown University. The noteworthiness and significance of it leads me to believe it more than counts for being a named chair per PROF C5. Moreso since this would be relevant in the field of international affairs. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 04:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, based on this comment. I'm fine with a non-admin closure. nearlyevil 665 06:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Tautomers. alphalfalfa^(talk) 05:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 08:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Israel, West Virginia

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

This community is absolutely not notable. I wasn't able to find any information, let alone reliable sources. --Ireadbooks12 (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IT'S NAMED AFTER A LANDOWNER. THAT ALONE MAKES IT A FAMOUS PLACE! --2A01:36D:1200:6B6:61BC:45D9:2CEA:8AD5 (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, being named after a landowner does not make an unincorporated community automatically famous. Besides, the only claim (since removed) that this place was named after landowner "Heinrich Iz Rahel" came from an IP user citing an irrelevant source [26] that doesn't mention any such person. For all I know, the place could have been named after a Biblical land, a Biblical character, a modern-day country, or a Bee Gees song. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article makes no claims of notability, and a quick search shows you likely won't find one. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 04:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First appears on topos in 1907 as "Israel Church", and appears on and off over the years as either "Israel Church", "Israel", and "Israel Ch" (which I assume means "church"). This isn't named after a landowner; this is named after Mount Israel United Methodist Church, located right in the middle. Searches for the church show an article about its 100th anniversary, and databases list its address in either Tunnelton or just Preston County. Google Maps shows a few houses located in the area, but all addresses are for Tunnelton. While the area looks populated, it's safe to say this place doesn't exist. AdoTang (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1. The nominator "fails to advance any argument for deletion"; merges can be proposed via the process described here. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 in Kerala

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

There is no need for such article when we already have an article covering whole India. This can be merged into 2021 in India Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 07:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 07:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "There is no need for such article when we already have an article covering whole India." Most illogical. We have timeline articles, including cities and towns. Merging this to 2021 in India is a WP:BADIDEA. 2021 in India is a list of the most significant 2021 events in the entire, 1-billion-populated country, not a list of every event significant only to specific towns or cities. Having an article about the whole country also list events important only to towns or cities would make it WP:TOOBIG. It's why we WP:Split huge topics into several articles in the first place. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While some took issue with this being a minor event, others pointed out significant coverage and the fact of injuries making it a significant event. Overall I see no consensus for deletion. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Longtail Aviation Flight 5504

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

Not notable aviation incidents. Engine failures are common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing indicated this of particularly note, just a bad day at the office, change the engine life moves on. MilborneOne (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, there was minimal mayhem, bystander injuries are unusual but not unprecedented. Carguychris (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ incident received international coverage on day of and local follow-up coverage in subsequent days, so meets WP:N, and nom statement that the incident is non-notable is false (it is true that engine failures are common, but that does not make them all non-notable). Injuries to people on the ground are notable, and were noted by multiple outlets. I have added additional detail with refs to the article. Dhaluza (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two people were injured on the ground, a women was hit in the head by debris. This is not a normal occurrence.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Somewhat similar incident Delta Air Lines Flight 89 and its AfD discussion. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 328. Dhaluza (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This event is notable for injuries, property damage, and disruptions per WP:SIGCOV. While nominator is technically correct that Engine failures are common, notability is a function of their impacts. Not of the failures themselves! gidonb (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per above. If the UA328 result was keep, then this more should.Yyang Sr. GakupoKaito (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to meet GNG. MB 06:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can be closed as snow keep. No case was made for deletion or even exists. Even when there were fewer references in the article, the article should have been kept per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The event received coverage from many sources, some from other languages including. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the nominator did not have a proper rationale, I have one: a violation of WP:ONEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. all of the coverage (which is 99% of the citations of this article) was published on the day of the event, and I've found no independent sources published after that. Gbooks and GScholar searches give you nothing. Only source after that date cited is a June 2021 primary source from OVV stating the investigation was going on, and that claim gained no coverage whatsoever. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:ONEVENT is for people, so not applicable. And the coverage continued over several days, so your statement that it was only day of is just completely incorrect (check the refs). Dhaluza (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both policies do not support deletion. WP:1E applies only to people known for one event. Events are per definition known for an event. Per WP:NOTNEWS: Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events, i.e. NOTNEWS clearly encourages well-rounded and well-sourced event articles with encyclopedic value, such as Longtail Aviation Flight 5504. It's an argument for KEEP! gidonb (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, "one day" probably wasn't the best wording to use. Technically, it was covered by the press for more than one day... but less than a week. It's true that WP:Notability is not temporary, but I doubt anything that gets interest for less than a week with no coverage, commentary in the context of wider issues, or updates since February 25 has a long-lasting-enough notability to absolve it from NOTNEWS. The dates of all the articles and OVV primary source citations in this article (minus the OVV announcement from June 2021 that doesn't add anything to the topic's notability) are from February 20 to February 25.

Also, to the use of the NOTNEWS quote "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" (1) the issue of "current and up-to-date information" is a separate issue of content inclusion, not topic notability, and (2) what is "significant" about a flight that only got news headlines and has been never analyzed by journals or academics as part of bigger issues? States NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". The only coverage this topic got makes it only a news-worthy-for-the-moment event like any other; regarded of how encyclopedic the prose of the wiki article is, the notability is not good enough to be past only news event notability, which NOTNEWS prohibits articles of.

Yes, NOTNEWS "encourages well-rounded and well-sourced event articles with encyclopedic value", which includes making sure the topic is of encyclopedic value. Newsworthy events that are nothing else but that are not of encyclopedia value, thus Longtail Aviation Flight 5504 fails NOTNEWS. NOTNEWS overrides SIGCOV and GNG here. Yes, all the sources with the news headlines were secondary sources about the event which meets SIGCOV, but they were only news pieces about that event nonetheless, all published within a week, failing NOTNEWS. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're using assumptions that are not based on thorough research. NOTNEWS is a strong argument for keep. NOTNEWS says most enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion (there is no bold in the source). This does not replace that Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events, i.e. that articles such as Longtail Aviation Flight 5504 are ENCOURAGED by WP:NOTNEWS. Then what does the word "most" (twice) refer to? The bulk of the news is clearly insignificant from a historic perspective. Things people or organizations did or said (e.g. someone was spotted at an event, a book was just released, a company merged, someone made an interesting argument in a parliament, someone left a band, a new slogan was introduced, someone said something strange in a campaign message) are the bulk of the events in the news but rarely become noteworthy stand alone events from a historic point of view. Aviation incidents that receive global coverage, however, remain part of public discussions also outside the week that you are now willing to concede. For example in the following articles: Netherlands, June 8, Belgium, July 2, Australia, July 5. The bottom-line is that no one has yet given even one working argument to delete this article. gidonb (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my !vote to a Weak keep following the three independent sources provided (although not found in my searches for some reason), but these should be cited in the article. "Global coverage" doesn't automatically indicate SIGCOV. All of the "global coverage" here I saw before you provided these examples were just news sources citing other news sources published around the same date for info, as is common with several flash-in-the-pan incidents. On another topic, you're still mis-interpreting NOTNEWS. "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information" only states to keep info of any article up to date with news sources; it's not about when to create articles. Additionally, that NOTNEWS quote specifically states to create stand-alone articles on "significant events". How significant this event is according to coverage is what we're debating here, and if the coverage doesn't indicate that, then a topic having its own article is NOT encouraged by NOTNEWS. I'll end this discussion here as examples have been providing indicating a least a little bit of secondary source interest in a topic this month, but I'd also like editors to know their policies and guidelines properly. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The global coverage were not cross citations as you assert. There was original reporting by several different teams of reports from different outlets doing original by-lined reporting. Again, check the author names in the refs. Dhaluza (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost nothing gets covered by the press for a week, so that would be a ridiculous standard unlikely to get consensus. The key is whether reporters stay on the story and write substantive follow-up articles. There are several examples of that here. And the OVV is both a primary and secondary source. The fact that they started an investigation is secondary source evidence of notability, i.e. they don't investigate everything. NotNews just says that things in the news don't necessarily belong in the encyclopedia, and in fact most things don't. But when a subject gets an unusual level of coverage not given to most things, that's an indication that it's not routine news. Dhaluza (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, minimal incident that does not require a standalone article. Maybe include it in P&W PW4000 page?.--Paolo9999 (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to more descriptive title from ref 2: Falling debris in Meerssen. I am modifying my keep vote to move because the formulaic title using the flight number does not properly summarize the subject, and framing the subject this way is a form of aviation chauvinism. None of the WP:RS use the flight number in their title--it is only included as a passing reference if at all. Other than the destination, there is no other publicly available info on the flight per se.

The location is more descriptive and sufficiently specific to distinguish this from other Parts Departing Aircraft events, so we don't need an arbitrary number. And we have a criminal investigation that closed with no finding of fault, so there is no reason to include Longtail Aviation in the title. I'm going to agree with User:HumanxAnthro in part, because to the extent that corporations are people, Longtail Aviation should not be famous for this WP:ONEVENT.

Because the formulaic title drives the lede, it places undue WP:WEIGHT on the commercial aviation angle of the story, which is not the most important. What happened on the ground got far more coverage than what happened in the air.Dhaluza (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not famous but enough long article.Airline Plane Crash (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SIGCOV. Subject lacks sustained significant coverage proving it has lasting notability. There are hundreds of similar plane crashes every year. This is not notable. Further, vehicular crashes involving cars, trucks, buses, etc causing similar or greater amounts of damage also aren’t covered for the same reason because they happen routinely. Arguments about lives lost and property damage indicating notability are spurious and not policy based. These kinds of events are only notable if we have quality sources showing sustained coverage beyond routine news coverage of crashes. 4meter4 (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These kinds of events are only notable if we have quality sources showing sustained coverage beyond routine news coverage of crashes. This precisely what we have, making it an argument to keep. See sources that I have added above. gidonb (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move I really like the proposal submitted by Dhaluza, and I can't improve on it. If I may pontificate a bit, and this has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies... I'll come at this issue from a different angle. I can appreciate the effort spent building the article to its current state, but in my opinion it really shouldn't have lasted beyond the initial stub. We need to set a precedent so that these kinds of articles don't keep getting built in the first place. We have lots of articles needing to be created or expanded, yet time is being spent on these no-big-deal events because there's a plethora of easily accessible resources for current-day events. Surely some of us agree with me that time would be better spent digging deep with google books/magazine/newspaper searches to expand or create articles for old crashes where dozens died. Sure, it's more difficult, but it's kind of rewarding to find nuggets of information gathering dust in musty corners of the web, and build something out of them from scratch. Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now, and hope I didn't anger the people who worked on the article. I can't remember where the list of crashes that need articles is located. Once I find it I'll go tackle some of them, so I don't look like a hypocrite. – Itsfullofstars (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrated domes

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

List with subjective inclusion criteria Brinerat (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Brinerat (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a subjective list. What makes a dome "celebrated"? Even the article doesn't say anything about why these particular domes are listed. There probably are ways to make lists of domes that are particularly significant besides List of largest domes that would meet our list criteria, but this is not one of those ways. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems it was originally pulled from this version[27] of domes back in 2008, but no source was included in the original either. Within Domes, it was originally added as "Famous Domes" by user:Wetman in 2004[28], but no source existed then either, and the edit did not include a reason. I can only assume that this is WP:OR, and thus has no place here. BilledMammal (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What on earth is a 'celebrated dome'? Ajf773 (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough context to identify the subject. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unadulterated, distilled 100% original research. ——Serial 13:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unsourced list. Without any sources establishing what a "celebrated dome" is or why these entries meet that criteria, this is complete WP:OR and should be removed accordingly. Rorshacma (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I believe that the obvious issue has been raised by others here already, which is of course that "celebrated" is not given an objective definition here, as opposed to, say, List of largest domes or List of tallest domes. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change "celebrated" to "notable," a "notable dome" being one that is found on a building that has a wikipedia article about it. I find the list quite fun. Carptrash (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We try to avoid articles with notable in the title. Ajf773 (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Domes exist. I agree with a name change. Every dome notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article should be listed. A table format would be better as it could have a column for information such as Treasury of Atreus "it was the tallest and widest dome in the world for over a thousand years" as its article states. Name, year created, measurements, information about it. Dream Focus 21:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 01:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the term "celebrated", if backed up by reliable sourcing for each and every entry, would be valid. But it isn't. Notable is not much better. That being said, a page move to List of notable buildings with domes, I think, might address the concerns of the current delete !votes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:onel5969: just reading your suggestion now, and it is a good one. It would aid navigation and research.Tonejunkie (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe WP:LISTCRITERIA is most relevant. It states "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.". As it stand this is very ambiguous, subjective, and not supported by reliable sources. As for the idea of changing the criteria to "notable" then we are simply duplicating a category. I think that the topic itself does not meet our criteria and as such changes to the article are unlikely to resolve this. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and it goes on to say "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item." Which is the case here. The real problem is the florid title "celebrated"; and lack of sources to establish notability - but they are all blue link with sources; and the article can be renamed. -- GreenC 15:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it appears the page only exists because I threw it off Dome; I regarded it as a meaningless list all those years ago. That view has not changed Changing to Keep and change to list of notable domes. It can do no harm and may be useful. God knows where snd to whom, but who knows? Giano (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change "celebrated" to "notable, as User:Carptrash has suggested. These are certainly notable domes and the list aides in navigation. I have added some information to two of the domes. Tonejunkie (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We try to avoid articles with notable in the title. Ajf773 (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specifically for discussion on whether LISTCRITERIA (and related) would permit an amended article to a list of articles about domes (and sourced thusly)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List criteria can be subjective per WP:LISTCRITERIA. Editorial choices what to include or exclude from Wikipedia is subjective. We are making subjective decisions all the time. The real problem is the florid title "celebrated"; and lack of sources to establish notability - but they are all blue link with sources available; and the article can be renamed. -- GreenC 15:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To avoid the argument that there are still many subjective decisions, here a slightly different formulation: First define what should be "celebrated" or "notable" at all before you create such a list -Killarnee (C•T•U) 16:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems: Wikipedia doesn't require approval before creating something, only after. Notability is defined, many lists exist based on notability. The suggested title is List of notable buildings with domes. -- GreenC 16:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the list. There is a list, but I do not see any value as long as there are no additional information in the list, such as why exactly this dome is in the list. The "Information" column in the list is also very lean xD -Killarnee (C•T•U) 16:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete the main issue is this list is just too subjective and hard to quantify. It might be better served to re-make a page similar to this with a different less subjective focus. While having a list of domes could be useful and amusing, this is not it Tautomers (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any dome that has its own Wikipedia article is what's on the list, nothing more. Dream Focus 13:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this is to subjective and hard to quantify as a topic. Especially when it comes to if a dome or the building it's attached to is what's notable. For instance, Saint Basil's Cathedral is in the list, but the cathedral itself is what's notable about it. Not the dome. The same goes for St Paul's Cathedral Etc. Etc. Which I'm not really sure how to reconcile. Sure, I guess something like List of notable buildings with domes could be created instead so the inclusion criteria is not as arbitrary. but I don't think that would work as a list either. Since like Dome says "The precise definition of a dome has been a matter of controversy and there are a wide variety of forms and specialized terms to describe them." You can't really have a list of something if there's no clear definition of what that something is. List of buildings with hollow upper halves of a sphere maybe? Muh. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Change to List of notable domes. This is a helpful and interesting list. The list could be expanded or slimmed depending on the definition used. There are clearly notable domes. Yes, dome is a defined term that can be expansive. This can be explained in a few sentences at the top of the list. Thriley (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If keeping the article hinges on there being a clear definition of the word "dome" (which it seems to) then the definition should be came up with before the AfD is closed. Otherwise, it's pretty likely no one is going to do it later and the article will still go against the guidelines for lists. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We try to avoid articles with notable in the title. Ajf773 (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As has been stated, there is no definition on what makes a dome celebrated or notable, and I think any such definition is bound to be subjective. This makes it impossible for the article to be unambiguous, objective, or reliably sourced per WP:LISTCRITERIA. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 00:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It list domes that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, making this a valid navigation list. Dream Focus 07:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it lists notable buildings that also happen to have domes. Most of them aren't notable at all for having domes though. Really, youu could just as easily make similar arguements for something like List of notable public restrooms or something along those lines. "Well, the buildings containing the restrooms are notable..And that's what the article contains..Buildings with restrooms ..So..Shrug?" At least in that case we could define what a restroom is though. Adamant1 (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - since changing the title doesn't seem to be a way to go, the current article does not meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources to back up subjective claims. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Air Canada masked stowaway case

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway Incident

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

This article is about a person who took a flight to Canada and claimed refugee status in 2010. He was one of 28,630 people to make this claim in Canada that year. The only thing unusual about the story was that he wore a silicon mask on the flight for reasons that remain unexplained. Due to the confidentiality of refugee claims in Canada there is no information on who he is, where he is from, why he was making a claim or any other details. The article fails WP:NOTNEWS and also WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Ahunt (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Airlines and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was a delete two years ago at the other AfD - the final I is now lowercase, so it doesn't appear as the second nomination - but find myself agreeing with the keep arguments there after a second review (mostly Levivich's weak keep demonstrating sustained coverage, which occurred after I took the one to DRV on NOTNEWS grounds trying to get it deleted. I don't remember that at all.) I agree this isn't what I'd call "100% notable," but it's probably over the line. SportingFlyer T·C 22:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While this story has gotten new coverage after 9 years since it's initial reporting, it's more of a burst of news and doesn't really count as WP:LASTING. The story is unusual and kind of head turning, and I would not agree that this is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL nor do I agree with WP:NOTNEWS. The news reporting shows there was more to this story and had ongoing pieces to it. Nevertheless, the story is only a little bit WP:BROAD and a little bit WP:DIVERSE and it appears the story has now come to a resolution, and the initial event isn't very big and probably worth deleting. However, I was initially going to say weak delete but I feel a weak keep due to arrests occurring indicating this news story had broader implications beyond the incident itself indicates it has significance, passes WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. Tautomers_{(T C)} 23:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This isn't a run-of-the-mill minor incident, and, as Tautomers mentioned, it has significance, passes WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. It thus warrants a stand-alone article. BilCat (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:GNG. Is there any sign of enduring coverage either? lassic case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Trivial incident, no lasting effects. The news media covered it for its novelty, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.Seems like a trivial newspaper story that is not worthy of a stand alone article in an encyclopedia. Minor NEWS event without lasting coverage or significance.--Miamiaim (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A clear-cut case of WP:NOTNEWS, with no sign of lasting coverage or impact other than on the protagonists. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the citations provided in Levivich's weak keep in the first AfD. This establishes all five major elements of WP:GNG. I'm not really sure why people are citing WP:NOTNEWS as a reason for deletion; the article is clearly not 1. original reporting, 2. written in an unencyclopedic tone, 3. overly emphasizing any of the individual personalities involved in the incident, or 4. celebrity gossip or a diary, which are the four elements listed under NOTNEWS. WP:NOTNEWS is not a valid reason to delete because of the four elements of that policy that could apply here are #2, and the enduring notability of the incident are demonstrated by the repeated, long-term reporting in cited by Levivich in multiple reliable sources. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This AfD is an obvious misapplication of WP:NOTNEWS that was litigated previously per RecycledPixels above. The argument that because this is one of a large N that makes it less notable is fallacious. A larger population means more, not less, notable examples would be expected. For example, a larger country should have more notable people. The fact that we don't know who the man is because of privacy concerns is irrelevant too. And the argument that this case is "only" unusual because of the mask contradicts the argument that this is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. In fact, because the mask use was so unique, it caused CBSA to issue an internal alert that was leaked to CNN, so this became an international story. We have in-depth follow-up coverage in multiple reliable sources on both the initial investigation, the asylum hearings in Canada, and the arrest, trial, and conviction of ground personnel in Hong Kong. I have added several more of these refs to the article. So this AfD should be closed because the discussion above is now moot. Dhaluza (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have renamed the page Air Canada Flight 018 stowaway case because the article has been expanded to cover a related series of events, so case is more descriptive than incident. Also fixed capitalization error because "stowaway" is not a proper noun (and to match Greenock stowaways). Dhaluza (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have renamed it again to Air Canada masked stowaway case because the flight number is beside the point, while the mask is much more to the point. Dhaluza (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - It is not considered good form to move an article while the deletion discussion is still open please do not do it again. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You speak with authority, but in the passive voice. Who considers it not good form? And are you objecting to form or function?

WP:DP is silent on page moves during AfD. WP:GD only says to note the move on the AfD, which I did. WP:MV says a scope change is a good reason to move a page. So I don't see any consensus for your assertion that "it is not considered good form to move an article while the deletion discussion is still open." Dhaluza (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To quote "While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts." MilborneOne (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that using the term "stowaway" in the title is also clearly misleading as the person in question was not actually a stowaway. MilborneOne (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, is your complaint as to form or function? Why did moving the page make the encyclopedia worse? Dhaluza (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also this seems to fit well with the second definition at stowaway: " In other cases, the goal is to enter another country without first obtaining a travel visa or other permission." Dhaluza (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And both South China Morning Post and The New York Times references cited used "stowaway" in their article titles. Dhaluza (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 15:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nominator's claim that "the only thing unusual about the story was that he wore a silicon mask" seems to indicate that they have no understanding of what notability means on Wikipedia. I also don't understand how this article fails WP:NOTNEWS; it's not original reporting (there is significant coverage of the event from many reliable sources), it's not a news report (the incident happened over a decade ago), and it's obviously not a who's who or a celebrity gossip or diary. - ZLEA _T\^C 12:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the only thing unique about the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan is that he was President...and but for the gun, this was just another day.... Dhaluza (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons cited above and at the last AFD. WP:GNG#Notability is not temporary 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable case because its the first of its kind, and it has gotten ample media coverage around the world to pass the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 20:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily satisfies WP:GNG. Bungstnk (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion If this article survives, I'm considering redirecting this article to List of crimes involving a silicone mask. Do you agree with this? Miamiaim (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with redirect. You are simply doing by indirection that which the AFD is failing to do by direction. It is already in that list; your true colors are showing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is the same as deletion, and since you one of the few people trying to delete it, clear what you are up to. Dream Focus 20:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, a Keep AfD doesn't preclude a merge, and that czn often be an outcome of an AfD. A merge can be proposed after an AfD closes as Keep, but most of the Keep comments are.supporting. a.stand-alone article. Further, too much content would lost in a list article entry, so I don't see that as a viable alternative. Finally, a sock farm has attempted to redirect this article to various list articles on several occasions without discussion, so continued efforts along that will only invite more scrutiny. BilCat (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relisting this is whimsical. The vote was 9 to 3. There is a "clear consensus" notwithstanding. Ipse dixit doesn't apply. I can count. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The relist is also pointless because the original reason for AfD was that this article was about a person. Notwithstanding the rest of that argument, the article has been expanded to be about more than just a person. So there is no reason to continue that discussion. Also there were no delete votes after the expansion. Dhaluza (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enduring notability of the incident precludes NOTNEWS. Dhaluza makes good points above. Previous AfD consensus adds weight. Large number of reliable sources. -- GreenC 14:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:EVENT and the WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS explicitly encourages articles as Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway incident. Hence strange that some use it against the article. gidonb (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus that these articles should be kept. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna as a gay icon

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

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

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

Back in the late 2000s, various people responded to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 24#Category:Gay icons by creating spinoff essays about certain celebrities' status as gay icons which could be kept in Category:LGBT culture as an effective bypass of the CFD result -- but what's much less clear by 2021 standards is why any of these need to exist as standalone topics, separately from the person's relationship with their LGBTQ fan base being contextualized in their main article itself. Similar essays about Cher and Lady Gaga were long ago redirected to their respective BLPs, for comparison's sake -- but just like those, each of these is just a tossed salad of stuff that belongs (and/or already is) in the main article, mixed with minor anecdotal trivia like the RuPaul's Drag Race "Night of 1000 Madonnas/Kimonogate" incident, Janet advocating for safer sex (which what socially responsible celebrity in the 1990s didn't?) and the rumoured but unconfirmed bisexuality of Vincente Minnelli, that would be WP:UNDUE to place much weight on at all. (Whatever Vincente Minnelli's sexuality was or wasn't, it really doesn't have much to do with underpinning Judy Garland's place in queer culture.) These just aren't all that well thought out or particularly substantial as articles -- they're not even especially good essays -- and I just don't see why they're necessary as separate topics from the biographical articles that all three women already have. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I hope you'll be feeling better soon, Bearcat. Best wishes from another ageing cat. Thincat (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Madonna as a gay icon clearly passes WP:N; the topic has been explored in depth by many independent RS, including Parade and NBC news. Coverage has been extensive enough that it should have its own article rather than being shoe-horned into the existing article for Madonna. Each of these 3 Wikipedia articles proposed for merger should be individually tested for WP:N. We shouldn't delete articles because similarly-focused articles have been deleted in the past. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Update Janet Jackson as a gay icon: also found in-depth individual coverage in South China Morning Post and The Washington Blade. Judy Garland as a gay icon: BBC and Irish Times, which points out widespread use of "friend of Dorothy" (I remember first seeing that in the movie Clueless.) AfD is not clean-up; these three are all independently notable topics. Each should be mentioned in the main bio but with a link to the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether these women are sourceable as gay icons or not — they all clearly are. The question is whether their status as gay icons needs to be treated as separate topics, with their own separate articles, from the biographical articles that all three women already have. In other words, it isn't a question of "Is Madonna sourceable as a gay icon?" — it's a question of "Do Madonna as a person and Madonna as a gay icon need to simultaneously exist as standalone articles independently of each other, or is Madonna's status as a gay icon better addressed within Madonna's BLP?" (And repeat the same question for both Janet Jackson and Judy Garland, obviously.) Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These articles are the worst precedent set in Wikipedia. I have never seen such blasphemy in my life. Painting a person like Judy Garland as a homosexual is blasphemy and a defamation against the woman who was married to a man! This is utter cursing, and I know how I feel when someone says I am LGBT. These articles foment division and hatred towards the heterosexual people and is a sign that these criminals are desperate to see at least 10% of the world population converted to LGBT before their mortal lifespan is finished. If this continues the fiefdom of LGBT will dominate and completely make Wikipedia's suffix meaningless.

Just take a look what they have done to American animation. Armed with their liberal news media they have completely hijacked films such as Luca and Mitchells vs. Machines. No longer does it mean to say that if you have a girlfriend or a boyfriend, it means that you are gay because you are the same gender! What utter nonsense. Thousands of prominent authors stated they have boyfriends and girlfriends. Can we rule them as homosexuals? No, only if ultra liberal news media like NBC come to their defense and spin tales of how the rainbow is LGBT...if you see a rainbow outside...or wait if you wear a rainbow pin...Oh that must be LGBT! This is the frenzy of avarice they have against the human kind who continue to live the life nature intended.

This is an encyclopedia and should be respected like one. The more these people who write these articles, the more Wikipedia ceases to become a compendium of non-biased knowledge book. If anyone has the guts to read what a print encyclopedia used to look like, which I thankfully have they will realize truly how much this Wikipedia has been hijacked by this fiefdom. It used to be written by those who drew in inspiration from the vast print encyclopedias they read in 2000s. The fact that Wikipedia doesn't have moderators is its greatest weakness which has been taken advantage of in the last few years by editors who never opened a single page of the quintessence of encyclopedias: book encyclopedias. There must be a crackdown on these type of articles, because as I mentioned before, media will do anything to paint animated films as LGBT when they do not have anything to with them. Armed with all those citations these people will create even more articles on how Obama was a gay icon and continue their way down to history picking on people that doesn't have anything to do with LGBT.7falcon23 (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped reading at "painting a person like Judy Garland as a homosexual", because nobody is doing anything of the sort. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I almost feel bad that you spent the time typing this screed out when no one is going to bother reading past the third sentence. Maybe try not to be such a buffoon next time. Mlb96 (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Yes these articles are delete-worthy because as a user pointed out, the articles follow WP:SYNTHESIS. The policy clearly states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." There is no proof the Madonna or Garland is a gay icon. They never explicitly stated they are to followed by gay people. Only people who have done polls or found themes from their songs caused them to fit the criterion of gay icon. The creator of the article synthesized all those articles and implied the suggestion that they are gay icons. Also why does the Judy Garland template deserve the gay article anyway. It seems a disrespect to the actress. What if I write an article on how Garland was a music icon or a movie icon. Why does an article on being a gay icon deserve more weight when her lifestyle is based as a singer and actress? Where are the articles on those instances?

And this is absolutely insane. Some musician's lyrics mirrors the gay experience. Then one reporter asked her she is being followed. Her reply was "I don't care less." Afterwards, thousands of articles are written on how themes of the song is similar to LGBTQ themes, as if implying she wrote it just for them. Here is that same pattern of hijacking. As if the songs were dedicated only to the LGBTQ people and not to the actual people who weren't gay that Garland actually wanted to represent. And then suddenly she is a gay icon! So if I started to write songs, and the LGBT people started to say how the themes mirrors theirs. Then a conveyor belt of articles are written on how my songs are LGBT. Then suddenly someone puts the article "I am a gay icon: under my template in Wikipedia when I am a religious person. Is that respectful of that person? Also this is just the beginning. I talked about animation before, and these article creators are ready to write something on Frozen. There are many articles from the liberal press written on how Frozen 2 songs is a dedication to the LGBT people. There have zero evidence to back up the claim, and nary a word of this is confirmed by the song writers. Yet there are articles that conclude it is for LGBT people. I won't be surprised if I see an article under Elsa's template saying she is a gay icon, forever ruining the childish innocence and forever traumatizing the viewers who aspired to be like Elsa only to learn she rather not marry a man and only marry a woman.7falcon23 (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC) double !vote struck Beccaynr (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply not true that a synthesis of sources is needed for this topic. For example this book from a major publisher states directly that both Madonna and Judy Garland are gay icons (which is unrelated to whether they are/were gay themselves) and there are many more. All that needs to be decided is whether this aspect should be covered in a separate article or in the main articles about those people. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and incorporate additional sources. For Madonna as a gay icon: in addition to the sources noted by HouseOfChange, there is also e.g. Madonna at 60: How she became the queen of all queens (Independent, 2018), 10 Reasons Madonna Is An Eternal Inspiration to the LGBTQ Community (Billboard, 2017), Madonna capped off WorldPride with powerful message during concert at 'Pride Island' (USA Today, 2019), Gay iconography and lesbian omission (Varsity, 2020), The 12 Greatest Female Gay Icons of All Time (Out, 2014, also including Judy Garland as #1), Madonna delivers bizarre coronavirus monologue while soaking naked in a bath surrounded by rose petals (PinkNews, 2020, "Madonna, the gay icon and sometimes popstar, has created quite the splash...), so WP:GNG appears to be met for a standalone article. For Janet Jackson as a gay icon, in addition to sources noted by HouseOfChange, there is e.g. I Think, Therefore Icon: Janet Jackson (Out, 2014), Top LGBTQ Anthems Part 2: The ’80s and ’90s (LA Weekly, 2019, "...helped solidify Jackson as a LGBTQ icon..."), These 20 albums were essential in shaping LGBTQ culture (Queerty, 2019, also listing Garland and Madonna), WATCH: Janet Jackson honored with 2017 Music Icon Award at the Out100 Gala (GayStarNews, 2017), Janet Jackson Supports President Obama on Gay Marriage (BET, 2012), Queen Of The Underdogs: 5 Reasons Pink Is an Underappreciated Gay Icon (Billboard, 2017, "...Older audiences may throw in Cher or Janet Jackson..."), 12 Queer Anthems From The ’90s & ’00s That You Need To Revisit For Pride Month (Bustle, 2021, also includes Madonna), so WP:GNG/WP:BASIC appears to be met for a standalone article. For Judy Garland as a gay icon, in addition to the sources noted by HouseOfChange, there is also e.g. Why Judy Garland is still such a gay icon (SBS, 2019), Watch Renee Zellweger Explain Why Judy Garland Is a Gay Icon (Out, 2019), Rufus Wainwright On What Makes Judy Garland a Gay Icon (Playbill, 2016), Gay icons (Rufus Wainwright, Guardian, 2006, also listing Madonna), Is Hollywood still in love with the suffering ‘gay icon’? (Guardian, 2019, "Judy Garland didn’t simply tick the boxes for “gay icon”, she created those boxes..."), Did A Star is Born Make Judy Garland a Gay Icon? (JSTOR Daily, 2018), ‘The Wizard of Oz’ in the LGBT community (Philadelphia Gay News, 2016), 5 interesting facts about Judy Garland (PBS, 2021, "5. She is a gay icon"), The Road Gets Rougher for Judyism’s Faithful (New York Times, 2012), How Judy Crystallizes the Connection Judy Garland Shared with Her Gay Fans (Them, 2019), etc., so WP:GNG appears to be met for a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Comment updated with additional sources.Beccaynr (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether these women are sourceable as gay icons or not — they all clearly are. The question is whether their status as gay icons needs to be treated as separate topics, with their own separate articles, from the biographical articles that all three women already have. In other words, it isn't a question of "Is Madonna sourceable as a gay icon?" — it's a question of "Do Madonna as a person and Madonna as a gay icon need to simultaneously exist as standalone articles independently of each other, or is Madonna's status as a gay icon better addressed within Madonna's BLP?" (And repeat the same question for both Janet Jackson and Judy Garland, obviously.) Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for following up - the sources also seem to support standalone articles per WP:NOTMERGE, i.e. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles and The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, because Gay icon is a discrete subject. Beccaynr (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question still is not whether "the broad concept of gay icons" is a discrete subject from Madonna, either — it's whether "Madonna as a gay icon" is a discrete subject from Madonna. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third AfD for the "Madonna as a gay icon" article, and since the 2008 AfD and 2010 AfD closed as keep, there appear to be many more sources to support the presumption of notability for a standalone article on the topic per WP:GNG. Beccaynr (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All →Madonna →Janet Jackson →Judy Garland.

The majority of these articles are about their subjects' involvement with LGBTQ+ affiliations in general and moreso support the claim that they're LGBTQ+ activists rather than simply gay icons.

A lot of the articles' content is subjective. Even if the claim that the subject is a gay icon is backed up by evidence, the way the articles present it as fact constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS and likely original research. The Madonna source polling people on their opinion of if she is a gay icon does not verify the egregious claim that "Madonna is a gay icon embraced by the gay community" and I doubt any WP:RELIABLE source would. The articles also provide virtually zero context for the point of view of their subject being a gay icon; they do not indicate anywhere how prevalent or significant that position is. Lastly, the articles are all aspects dependent on the life of their respective celeberty, and do not warrant a stand-alone article. We don't have a "Madonna as a child" article or "Janet Jackson's musical legacy" article. I think the articles should be reworded in a neutral point of view, have subjective and undue content removed, and be merged into their respective main articles. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 01:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:NEXIST, The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article, and there are a wide variety of independent and reliable sources identified in this discussion that appear capable of objectively addressing WP:V, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, and WP:GNG concerns described in the !vote above. Beccaynr (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's nothing wrong whatsoever with creating subarticles about aspects of a subject (WP:SPLIT). Audie Murphy, for example, has separate articles on his careers as a soldier and as an actor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the articles clearly meet WP:GNG. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Garland article, as she is probably the most famous gay icon of all time. No opinion on the other two. Mlb96 (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Madonna as a gay icon and Judy Garland as a gay icon. Clearly notable subjects in their own right that pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:GNG Nitesh003 (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD is not cleanup, but an article about someone as a "gay icon" should focus on evidence that the person is considered a gay icon. Who has described this person as a gay icon and why? Being a gay icon means being the focus of attention and love from, specifically, gay fandoms including in modern times LGBTQ fandoms. Supporting LGBTQ causes is not equivalent to being a gay icon, otherwise Joe Biden would be a gay icon, which AFAIK he is not. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed, e.g. Joe Biden’s inaugural prayer service was ‘the most LGBT-inclusive in history’ with blessing for trans and gay people (PinkNews, 2021, "After some toned-down hymns accompanied by an organist, gay icon Patti LaBelle appeared to give a rousing performance of "The Star-Spangled Banner"."), Gay icon Cher is set to headline a virtual LGBT+ fundraiser for Joe Biden (PinkNews, 2020), Cher Sings 'Happiness Is a Thing Called Joe' at Biden Benefit, (Advocate, 2020), "The gay icon was the final act..."), Do you believe in life after Trump? Cher sure does and wants to help Biden win (Los Angeles Times, 2020, "As a beloved gay icon and ally, Cher will be in good company...In related efforts by the Biden campaign, on Sept. 14, singer and gay icon Cyndi Lauper will appear at another LGBTQ+ event.") Beccaynr (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I certainly agree that Wikipedia is hardly the place to decide who counts as a gay icon and who doesn't, since it is entirely subjective. Except, there are some people so famous as gay icons, and their status as such is so cemented by tsunamis of scholarly and journalistic material, that arguing they aren't gay icons and then deleting well-sourced and balanced essay pages/sections on the matter is extremely contrary to GNG. As a similar example, as Wikipedians surely we can't spend all day arguing over which musicians count as soul divas - and yet if you argue Aretha Franklin isn't popularly seen as such a thing, you're ignoring basically all critical opinion on the matter. OhioShmyo (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Judy Garland. Obviously a substantiated and notable topic, but would definitely overwhelm any potential merge target. Delete Madonna and Janet Jackson (maybe a very selective merge) - a list of pro-gay-rights statements is not sufficient to justify/substantiate an article on someone being a gay icon. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:SIGCOV. Clearly a WP:BEFORE search was not done by any of the delete votes. Google books and google scholar alone provide a host of sources, not to mention what’s available in press publications. My university library search shows academic journal articles in queer and gender studies covering these topics. Frankly, the Madonna article is missing a lot of key underlying content from much earlier in her career, such as her mainstreaming of vogue from gay subculture and the impact that had on gay men. The impact of Madonna: Truth or Dare which focused on the stories of her gay backup dancers, and the way her outspoken support during the AIDS crises of the 80s and 90s all impacted the gay community and influenced her status as an icon.4meter4 (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC) 4meter4 (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Madonna article. Despite now, every mainstream diva is a "gay icon" her main article isn't focused in sections such as "Other interest" or "Politics" (like with Cher) and this sub-article easily can have sections such as "criticism" or "activism" since her relation with the LGBT commmunity is vast (even before fame). Also, numerous LGBT-oriented publications such as Advocate and Out have dedicated whole articles to Madonna as a gay icon/relationship with LGBT community as well more mainstream music media like Billboard. As far I remember, she attained scholarly and academic comments within this area. No opinion about Judy Garland or Janet Jackson articles, but I don't oppose if both articles are deleted or we keep them. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, or keep none of them at all. Could these be condensed and merged to their main pages? You bet. However, I think they are all deserving of their own stand alone topics as per sources from each page. It was important to me to see major icons like Madonna and Janet, more so the latter as she looks like me, be so accepting in a time where being accepting of the LGBTQ community wasn’t the mainstream thing to do. Garland was doing this far beyond their years. It’s important that these articles exists on Wikipedia. Each of these women meant something to someone who identified with them because of era, race, etc. TruthGuardians (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject passes GNG, and there is too much material out there to make it a subsection of a larger article, like gay icon or LGBT activism. It's really as simple as that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Judy Garland as gay icon. It clearly passes WP:GNG and is too long in its current state to be merged into Judy Garland without having to make significant cuts. For the other two, I'm neutral on whether to keep or merge. Colin M (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a WP:HOAX. Wouldn't even recommend WP:DRAFT'ing it, though probably best not to prohibit it outright at this stage (for the sakes of transparency). El_C 17:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Government of Rhodesia

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

Page is newly created with links to equally newly-created pages describing a government-in-exile for whose existence there is no independent evidence. PaddyMatthews (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, but the claim “created with links to equally newly-created pages” is misleading. It’s only the proof that the esteemed colleague just clicked on two convenient links (the ones which proof nothing indeed) and ignores the entire scientific literature. Is Wikipedia now based on a fast look at mostly irrelevant links while the entire scientific sources are being ignored?

So far, what was added has better academic sources and references than most of all the pages about Rhodesia.

I will not “fight” with people who work with this attitude. I’m a scientist without the desire to continue the Rhodesian bush wars here. Either the Wikipedia community can accept that someone contributes to the best of his knowledge, or not. That’s all from my side. Keep, delete, do what you like. Facts remain facts with or without Wikipedia. University Professor for History (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In all honesty, it seems like a hoax article. There's no legitimacy that I can interpret regarding many of the claims being made, and it's non-notable as most of the sources seem to touch on historical aspects of Rhodesia rather that the supposed government-in-exile. Curbon7 (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree this looks like a hoax. I suspect it's not a coincidence that The Republic of Rhodesia started tweeting two days before the creator started editing Rhodesia-related articles on here to claim there was a government in exile. Number 5 7 16:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the sources is on Google books; when I checked it for a specific claim (Rowland), it failed verification. The domain for their "official website" was registered in June. I cannot find any mentions anywhere that support the specific claims about the government-in-exile. Pretty certain it's a hoax. Schazjmd (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 17:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Those seeking delete point out that sources amount to interviews and mere mentions from promotional material. There is a consensus to delete this article. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kweku Flick

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

Non-notable rapper/songwriter. References do not justify the notability of the subject. fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO GermanKity (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG & WP:RS. A BEFORE shows the subject is only mentioned but never discussed in detail. -Xclusivzik (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As is common for beginners in the Ghana music scene, the "sources" are simply repeats of his management's promo releases at unreliable celeb gossip sites, and this WP article is just part of the same promo campaign. Watch for "Rose to fame" and similar desperate prose repeated in all places. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The entity is a known artist in Ghana and has been on various radio and tv interviews in the country as well as covered in multiple news sources. Below are sources of news about the entity.
https://www.ghgossip.com/kweku-flick-is-the-reason-kwesi-arthur-is-struggling-in-the-industry-nhyira-fms-ruthy-asserts

https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/I-paid-for-my-first-record-through-betting-Kweku-Flick-1140686

https://www.ghgossip.com/video-kweku-flick-storms-the-campus-of-kumaca-see-how-he-was-received

https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/I-deserve-a-university-outside-Ghana-Kweku-Flick-1203430

The above links were stories the news sites generated from interviews he had either on radio or television station
Obengjennifer (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Charghat Upazila. Consensus has formed that this is not an appropriate topic for a stand-alone article. As the suggestion to redirect has not been challenged, redirecting as a WP:ATD. Hog Farm _Talk 04:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sardah Government Pilot High School

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

Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES "following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject to WP:N and WP:ORG." Other than some listing site or passing mention, I didn't found any significant coverage in reliable sources about this school. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely agree with আফতাবুজ্জামান, article makes no claim of notability and does not pass WikiProject Schools notability criteria. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 04:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Charghat Upazila, the lowest level locality for which we have an article, as an alternative to deletion. The only thing remarkable about it, that it was founded in 1916, is already mentioned there. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WWVR (disambiguation)

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

Open and shut WP:2DABS case - specifically, WP:ONEOTHER. There is one primary topic (WWVR), and the only other related page (WZJK) is linked from a hatnote. Taking it to AfD because the PROD tag was removed. schetm (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I noted on another AFD, we have a long history of transitional disambiguation pages after a call sign change, followed a couple of years later by putting a hatnote on the article with the base call sign and moving it over top of the disambiguation page if the disambiguation page only has two entries. I've done those moves myself, conservatively, 100 times, and I have another three dozen or more on my "get around to it someday" list. Mlaffs (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A disambiguation page is not required here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Another annoying misuse of AfD because IDONTLIKEIT. Half tempted to make this a "Speedy Keep", OP definitely needs a nice TROUT. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my reasoning here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the peculiarities of US radio station names do not override the usual disambiguation rules, and there is no reason for this page to exist. PamD 14:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Since there's only one station currently assigned to that callsign, there's no need to have a disambiguation page for such. A hatnote in WZJK will suffice since that's the only station the callsign was formerly assigned to. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted Sisters (2010 film)

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 01:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NFILM. There is nothing to suggest that this made-for-TV documentary is particularly notable. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1930 Speedway Northern League

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

One of many poorly sourced articles in the "Speedway" (motorcycle racing) topic area. The only source is a blogspot blog; it appears that blog is copying content from this page that dates to 2011. Perhaps Northern League (speedway) is a redirect target, though that page has issues as well.

Deliberately a single-page nomination; will follow up with a bulk nom or redirection if appropriate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete This must not be deleted, it is a valuable historic article on the second season of the British Speedway League. I find it hard to believe that it has been nominated for deletion by User:力 and I don't think too much hard work went into looking at its importance in relation to speedway in Britain or for looking for references. I will add some now. Pyeongchang (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
references added Four references added in a matter of minutes (three from internet) including one from the official British Speedway pages. Please note there were plenty more by using simple keywords in a Google search, I would suggest a proper search before nominating for deletion in future. Pyeongchang (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While we do have a problem with speedway articles being poorly sourced (due to many of the editors working in this area not adding sources rather than a lack of sources existing), that doesn't justify deletion. As User:Pyeongchang has demonstrated, sources do exist, and there will certainly be a wealth of sources to be found in newspapers from the era. Speedway meetings in 1930 attracted attendances of up to 70,000 spectators, so it was certainly a major sport in Britain at the time. --Michig (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As i created the page I am possibly biased, but in 1930, this league was the highest tier of English Speedway, it wasn't some local nondescript league. Perhaps User:力 has not understood the historical significance. I pretty much echo the thoughts of Pyeongchang and welcome his work adding the references.Rcclh (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the GreyhoundDerby.com reference added looks good, with plenty of primary sources; however I'm not sure the content there justifies having this be a separate article from Northern League (speedway). The other references do not impress me with their quality; I'm not sure how I'm supposed to know if they copied their data from Wikipedia or not. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources exist, and it is clearly notable.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pre above Nitesh003 (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1994 Bracebridge municipal election

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

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

Two minimally sourced articles about municipal council elections in a small town, with no particular evidence that they would be notable topics. In both cases, the sourcing is being used entirely to support mini-BLPs of individual people (the mayor in 1994, a ward councillor in 2006) who would not otherwise pass WP:NPOL #2 for the purposes of actually getting standalone articles, with absolutely no sourcing present to support the notability of the elections as events. We long ago deprecated the idea that we need to document town council election results in every small town on earth — to be fair, that was a popular strain of belief at the time these were created, so they were good faith creations at the time, but these just aren't demonstrating any compelling reason why they would still be needed. Bearcat (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable election, and the wedging of a single non-notable biography into each is ridiculous. Reywas92^Talk 05:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has created scores of similar articles including such hotly contested elections as 2005 Mont-Saint-Michel municipal election and 2003 Brigham municipal election, in which the leadership of these small towns of 600 and 2,500 people were not even contested. Why??? Then there's a whole bunch of pages like 1987 Quebec municipal elections and Ralliement créditiste du Québec candidates in the 1976 Quebec provincial election which are wildly incomplete and don't make sense as articles even if expanded either. Batch noms may be in order. Reywas92^Talk 06:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no limit to the number of articles of this sort that could be created. I wonder why anybody would think that this is worthwhile. "Batch noms may be in order": I agree. Athel cb (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article should be deleted. It wasn't contentious when I created it, many years ago, but I agree that by Wikipedia's current standards it should go. I'd also be fine with deleting the Brigham page listed above and other pages of that sort. I wouldn't agree with deleting pages like 1987 Quebec municipal elections, because that subject matter is still notable, irrespective of the current state of the article. CJCurrie (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trash Inc: The Secret Life of Garbage

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 01:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep per the reviews from 👨x🐱 (HumanxAnthro). Seems like a lack of research on my part. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep per reviews cited. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Reviewed in The Los Angeles Times and Huffpost, plus found a few books citing the documentary. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would state that the coverage I found was very small, so maybe a merge into another article is another option. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage linked above including The Los Angeles Times, Huffington Post as well as book coverage, passes WP:GNG imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lifetime for now (WP:ATD), noting that it can be re-redirected to a different article in the future if desired. Daniel (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Snow Globe Christmas

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

Non-notable television, lacking significant coverage or other indications of notability per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 00:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Plenty of coverage exists, but all mentions I could find are part of lists, meaning that they do not count toward WP:GNG. Furthermore, no reviews exist on Rotten Tomatoes. TV films tend to lack notability. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to a Lifetime-related article (or Lifetime). GNews did give me results, but it's mostly guides of what Christmas movies are on Netflix or TV newspapers and pop culture publications normally do, not actual coverage. Actually, since the general topic of Lifetime Christmas movies gets coverage for dominating cable TV with right-wing and "apoltical" messaging, fascist propaganda, and inspiring the just-as-right-leaning Fox News to do its own boring-ass, lifeless holiday coal they call Christmas TV films, I'd create an article on that and redirect this specific film article to that, as the film is the same boring, wouldn't-trigger-Republicans dribble as those other Lifetime films. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lunametrics

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Reference 1 [29] is local and decent, the rest are blatant PR. I don't see other substantial coverage of LunaMetrics or Bounteous, which is either the new name or acquirer of this company. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that there are not enough sources with significant coverage for this to be considered notable. WP:SIRS WhirlWithoutEnd (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a SEO/consultancy firm going about its business. Appearance on fastest-growing lists etc. are not significant coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:NCORP and there is no article on Bounteous / HS2 Solutions who acquired the firm in 2017 so no redirect option. AllyD (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy Warriors

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

Non-notable erotic film, lacking significant coverage and other indications of notability per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 00:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage, fails NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable secondary coverage in sources. Doesn't pass WP:GNG let alone WP:NFILM. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 05:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger strike of political prisoners in Iran 2021

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

If these has legs, which it does not appear to, it might be notable, but as of right now, as per WP:NOTNEWS, delete. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a widespread civil protest in Iran and should not be deleted. Domino110 (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. It's way to early to assume there will be sustained coverage of this. Honestly I think the best to do would be to merge/redirect to a broader article about political protest or political prisoners in Iran, but I couldn't find one. So if anyone has a good suggestion for an article this can go to I'll change my vote. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe merge anything worthwhile into Human rights in Iran. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Bean

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

Promotional article. Non-notable businessman. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdwardX. Thank you for the review of my first article. The person in this article is very well known within the technology industry and on Twitter. Would additional sources make the content notable? Including news articles from industry and mainstream media outlets. SunshineState86 --SunshineState86 (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SunshineState86, we require significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) to justify dedicated articles on Wikipedia. The Atari article is a press release. Entrepreneur is not a significant discussion of the subject. And the remaining refs are primary sources. czar 05:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SunshineState86: 'Lucas Bean' does not appear to even have a verified Twitter account, how could he possibly be notable via Twitter? —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 05:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam of non-notable person. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page has been moved into Draft space at Draft:Lucas Bean. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is totally a spam/advert article about a clearly non-notable person. There's nothing about it whatsoever that passes the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete for [A7]. Article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 05:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I could find sth. about him, but if he is really notable, more sources would be available.Tec Tom (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Yashahime: Princess Half-Demon episodes. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yashahime: Princess Half-Demon (season 1)

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

I don't see why you need two different versions of season pages, suggest delete and merge needed content into List of Yashahime: Princess Half-Demon episodes. Govvy (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also included. Yashahime: Princess Half-Demon (season 2) Govvy (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because having separate pages for each season is no different than any other television series that's long. SpectresWrath (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Link20XX Fixed it. SpectresWrath (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seasonal TV shows get separate articles about their respective seasons all the time. Unless there's an unwritten rule that you need a certain amount of seasons before you start separate articles, I don't see what the problem is. MushroomMan674 (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SpectresWrath MushroomMan674 If you want the article to be kept, you should say Keep. Link20XX (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Link20XX My fault. Changed it. MushroomMan674 (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @MushroomMan674:, @SpectresWrath:, @Link20XX: There are only two seasons at present, if it was like the List of The Big Bang Theory episodes then it would makes sense to have them split. However at this point, why should it be split off into multiple articles. Just look at List of White Collar episodes, every episode is listed on one page. List of Yashahime: Princess Half-Demon episodes should be able to contain all the content fine. I consider season one and two completely unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORKS at this time. Govvy (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A lot of other anime series has two seasons as well but their separated. Their is no real reason to delete this page when the series is just starting to get long. SpectresWrath (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Also, if I can add, Yashahime is part of the longer InuYasha anime run at large. Even though they're not the same series, they *are* connected and I think it make sense to separate. MushroomMan674 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To give an even further comment, look at something like Dr. Stone (season 2). Granted, it's going to have another season eventually, but even when that page was made, the show only had 2 seasons to its name, and the article was allowed to stay up. So why not this one? MushroomMan674 (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MushroomMan674: That Dr. Stone is terrible, you can easily have all that information on one page, instead you have three pages, so the information is split between three very short articles, when it can easily be contained all in one article. They should all be merged into one article. Poor structure. Govvy (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not every season in anime is gonna be long. Look at season 7 for Naruto Shippuden for example, its only 8 episodes. Even One Piece has 4 seasons with only 13-16 episodes in it. SpectresWrath (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now The second season hasn't aired yet. I don't see a case to split the seasons just yet. Once the second season has aired for a while re-splitting can be reconsidered. For future reference if this gets revisited, after season 2 airs I would support seperate season pages as its part of Inuyasha, but would also support merging the summary list article into the main show article as it should still meet WP:SIZE concerns when it doesn't include episode summaries. Jumpytoo Talk 02:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. No reason for two separate articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Jumpytoo above, who provides a very logical rationale with some policy backing. I note that a lot of arguments to keep this equate to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Daniel (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. I think the gun was jumped on this split. Perhaps wait for the second season to have aired a few episodes and it may be appropriate. Link20XX (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now, as per Jumpytoo. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Yashahime: Princess Half-Demon episodes. Except for the plot summaries, all this info is already there. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment: There's been no delete !votes. This should have been a merge proposal rather than an AfD proposal. If a keen user wants to make a merge proposal they are welcome to, but I am for now removing this from AfD. Dr. Universe (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Update: Switched from keep to merge after learning from Link20XX that it's okay to close as "merge" then actually merge the contents later.

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 KDE Projects. Or elsewhere as appropriate. Sandstein 07:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KDE Connect

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

Non-notable application that fails WP:GNG, a search brought up only unreliable sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any reliable sources with significant coverage or reasons this piece of software is notable. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources about it either. I was thinking about going with a redirect, but I don't think it's even worth one. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 09:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, with KDE Applications. There are some secondary sources,[30][31][32] but it doesn't need its own article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to KDE Projects. While it is often easier to adequately source claims about free software than the GNG threshold suggests, the sourcing for this application is thin enough that I don't think we should keep on even a charitable reading. The Applications section of the KDE article is not a suitable merge target, because that documents a specific group of applications that has fallen into disuse. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to KDE Projects now that some usable references have been found and improvements made to the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

7mm GPC

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

Found this poking around in CAT:NN. This appears to be old firearm cartridge spam. Created by a SPA who has changed their username but was originally named "GPC2010" as their username, suggesting a COI here. Sources in the article all appear to lack independence and/or reliability, and a WP:BEFORE brings up some unreliable gun blogs and forums, but no significant coverage in RS; although there do appear to be some engine parts and electrical engineering components with similar names. Fails WP:GNG and the manufacturer doesn't seem to have an article we can redirect this to. Hog Farm _Talk 22:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 22:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 22:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to being an advert article about something that clearly isn't notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Aaron Moskel

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Run-of-the-mill person. Edwardx (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search came up with nothing, Fails NAUTHOR.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 16:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article and available references (both in the article and otherwise) are pretty run of the mill. So there's nothing about him that meets the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: On top of what has already been mentioned, this is a huge BLP violation, in particular the part regarding the drug arrest and prison absolutely need to be sourced. Curbon7 (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After doing a pretty deep search I only found one additional source, and it is a pretty weak source. I think this article should be deleted because it does not pass WP:BLPNOTE. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 05:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Banister

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

Banister is the definition of WP:ONEEVENT, notable only for his tax avoidance charges. A Google search of "Joe Banister" makes this especially clear. Subject has no sustained coverage and doesn't meet the GNG. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 18:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 18:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:ONEEVENT, The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. Accordingly, seeing the event rolled for years (sigcov available even in 2016, when the even occured in 2004-2005) and had the event sequences seemed significant, leaning for keep. Chirota (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it’s SIGCOV at all. The materials you mention from 2016 are directly cited primary materials (court documents)—that isn't significant coverage. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 01:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to lasting notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO. KidAd • SPEAK 01:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no claim to lasting notability. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be based on primary sources like court documents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of bitcoin forks. Sandstein 07:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taproot (fork)

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Additionally, article is about proposed/possible event so WP:CRYSTALBALL issues violate WP:NOT (proposed Bitcoin forks in the past have been rejected). Those issues aside, still should not be a standalone article as it appears to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of information that should be listed/merged into the already created List of bitcoin forks article. Hocus00 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of bitcoin forks. I don't understand the SIGCOV argument, I think there is significant coverage from CNBC, Bloomberg, and Forbes. But the CRYSTAL argument is fair, I don't oppose merging with list of bitcoin forks and then spinning back out into its own article in November. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of bitcoin#2021 it's a thing, but not important enough to be a stand-alone page, and (fork) is not the right disambiguation term. History of bitcoin is a very low-quality article; putting this content there will improve that article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of bitcoin forks. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 03:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per 力 - David Gerard (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With list of bitcoin forks, subject not notable enough for a standalone article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 01:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jo de Winter

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

Possibly fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. Actress was a run-of-the-mill person whose notablity is starring on a one and done spin off the the sitcom All In The Family with a few other roles here and there. Pahiy (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions Pahiy (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions Pahiy (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions Pahiy (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Played a main role in TV sicom^[1], appeared as Mrs. Willis in Dirty Harry^[2]^[3]^[4], and in another Clint Eastwood film, The Bird. Keep. Кирилл С1 (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Кирилл С1, the references they have in this dicussion are reliable in some, but mentions. I've also added a ref of her death, in which it was the only news of death, that I could find. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been improved since nominated for deletion. Penny Richards (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of public television news programs

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

Unsourced and weirdly organized list with maintainability issues, on a characteristic that isn't necessarily a useful grouping of topics.
Essentially, this is just a list of television news programs aired by publicly-funded broadcasters -- but that isn't necessarily a useful point of comparison between, say, PBS NewsHour in the United States and Xinwen Lianbo in China or between BBC News at Six in the United Kingdom and 보도 in North Korea, because the context of what publicly funded broadcasting even means varies from country to country. (It means something very different in a democratic society than it does in an authoritarian dictatorship, for example.)
Furthermore, this list includes offsite links to almost every listed program's own self-published website, which Wikipedia lists are not supposed to do, and for some of the listed entries even the "programme" column interlangs to a foreign-language Wikipedia article instead of an English-language Wikipedia article, which we're also not supposed to do since most readers of the English Wikipedia don't understand the foreign language in order to even be able to read the article.
And on top of that, it also obliterates a lot of context, since in some cases it lists one newscast for networks that produce several newscasts -- for example, the CBC in Canada also produces morning, noon, 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. newscasts in addition to the prime time newscast, as well as a couple of investigative newsmagazine series, rolling throughout-the-day newscasts on a full 24-hour news channel, and lather, rinse and repeat all of that in French too.
This just isn't an important or meaningful point of commonality between the listed programs per se, because it just buries far too much context and nuance and complexity in the sand, and violates several of our rules about lists in the process. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This list fails to distinguish between public broadcasting and state media among the other problems mentioned by the nom. In addition, the list apparently fails to include any news programs that are no longer being broadcast. It also uses text in non-roman writing systems in a way which is not accessible to readers of the English Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - WP:SYNTH problems as well as problems with "selecting" one news program to list. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Met90's reasoning; this article simply doesn't know what public broadcasting and state media are, and the difference between them. The choices are also incredibly random; BBC News at Six isn't the BBC's prime news show by any means, while the ABC's 7.30 isn't even a straight newscast. Nate • (chatter) 21:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Met90. killer bee  06:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://variety.com/2021/tv/spotlight/all-in-the-family-spinoffs-the-jeffersons-good-times-1234878187/

[2] ttp://www.frenchfilms.org/review/dirty-harry-1971.html

[3] ttps://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/23013/dirty-harry#credits

[4] ttps://letsgotothemovies.co.uk/2020/06/02/dirty-harry-1971-review/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]