Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 12 July 14 >

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 keep and merge the other two together. Aymatth2, can I please get you to execute the merge and redirects? Thanks in advance. Daniel (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aceolus and Acius

[edit]
Aceolus and Acius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This stub seems redundant with Acheolus and Acius. Not sure why this combo stub is necessary. Gjs238 (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The stub was a redirect to Acius, but after the Acheolus article was started an article pointing to the two seemed to make more sense than a redirect pointing to one or the other. The sources usually treat the two saints as a pair. Possibly Acheolus and Acius should be merged into this one. There are a surprising number of articles on pairs or groups of saints that were martyred together, where little or nothing else is known of them individually. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge the two individual articles into this one - There aren't a whole lot of sources on them, but those that are already in these articles, and that I've found with searches, all seem to discuss them exclusively as a pair. On top of that, the two current separate articles are nearly identical in content, as they are both being based off of the same sources that discuss them together. It would make more sense, in this case, to make this the primary article and have the two individual articles redirect here instead. Rorshacma (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge per Rorshacma. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can do the merge after a close as keep: basically just copy over Acheolus and tweak the lead to refer to both saints. They both have the same date of death etc.. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:37, 21 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Veidman

[edit]
Leigh Veidman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTY, as he has never played nor coached in a fully-pro league. Seems to fail WP:GNG: the only independent coverage I've found on him is this, everything else is just routine transfer coverage. Nehme1499 23:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 23:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 23:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 23:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 23:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme1499 23:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good sources: [1], [2]. Sure there's some more in the mountains of recent Google News hits that I haven't had time to trawl through. And as a new head coach, the number of good sources is likely to increase. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:NFOOTBALL does not supersede WP:GNG. Passing WP:NFOOTBALL, or any of the other sports-specific notability guidelines in WP:ATHLETE, is not an automatic notability pass per WP:ATHLETE own FAQ at the top of its page.

    Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
    A2: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability.)

    Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
    A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)

    Q3: If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards?
    A3: No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist.)

    So in short, if nobody here can come up with sources that shows the subject passes WP:GNG then the article should be deleted per Wikipedia community consensus. Arguments that he could have coverage in the future are invalid per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Alvaldi (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Joseph2302: As I stated in my comment, he fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. And if you want me to go deeper into that, then that is fine. The only significant coverage presented here that goes into the subject is this and then there is this in the article itself [3] which is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Out of curiosity, will you be asking other !voters to explain their !votes further? Alvaldi (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alvaldi: Not trying to stir the pot, I just want to explain my thinking. Leigh is as notable as any other head coach in the USL correct? He is listed as the manager on the official club website and on the USL site. Leigh is mentioned and discussed as the manager on ESPN broadcasts and even shown on the touchline of ESPN, a national sports media company. If we say he isn't notable because the google algorithm doesn't pull up every single place his name is mentioned on the internet or traditional television media, then we would have to purge Wikipedia of every USL manager. If that were to happen, then we have deleted articles of almost all head coaches of a fully professional league and the second division of football in one of the largest countries in the world. Many other users in this section have deemed the article and its subject notable enough to keep, even the user who first recommended for deletion noted that they overlooked his role as head coach that gave him notability. Again, these are just my thoughts, I'm not trying to step on any toes. 405footballfan (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @405footballfan:No pots being stirred and no toes being stepped on, I am more than happy to have a discussion on the matter. First and foremost, the Wikipedia community consensus is pretty clear on that being a coach or a player in a FPL does not make the individual automatically notable. What makes them notable is if they get significant coverage in multiple publications (two articles from one publications count as one towards GNG) that are independent of the subject (no team or league websites) over some period of time (short blurb of coverage over a month won't do). So even if we believe the individual should or might have the coverage we still have to prove he has it for the article to be kept. The three above keep !votes fail to do that by 1. claiming that the subject passes WP:GNG without pointing to any sources to back that up 2. state that he passes WP:NFOOTBALL but leaving out the fact he still has to pass GNG per WP:ATHLETE or 3. state that he might have sources in the future which clearly goes against Wikipedia's community consensus per WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON. (Note that User:Joseph2302 later did add two sources to his answer). For a modern day individual in an english speaking country, it is usually fairly easy to find that coverage if he has recieved it. If certain head coaches in the USL fail to generate the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG then unfortunately yes, their articles should be deleted. But WP:GNG is not a ridiculously high bar, generally it is enough to show a subject has 3-4 good significant sources for them to survive AfD. I've only been able to find two, from The Des Moines Register[4] and from The Oklahoman[5]. User:Joseph2302 does link to an article on a website called oursportscentral.com which does not look like a major publication. If Veidman is truly notable, then there should not be a problem to find a couple of other significant sources about him somewhere. Alvaldi (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alvaldi: Is a podcast with OSG Sports, a podcast produced by award winning sports journalists [8] where he is the main topic notable? [9] Or is this other podcast called “Behind the touchline with George Zambrano,” who is a FA level 1 talent identification scout and a football agent, in the WP refs link notable? [10] 405footballfan (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alvaldi: and this article from OKC Fox 25 [11] which is literally titled “Energy FC will have a new coach” referring to Veidman taking over as head coach while Energy start to look at new possibilities, which is written in the article isn’t enough? It was sourced in the wiki article itself. This is my last attempt to try to prove notability. He seems to have enough coverage. You can Google and find his name and pictures from multiple sources, even on transfermarkt (which I know isn’t a source used for Wiki notability but as a football fan would know, that’s massive). He’s on television broadcast every week when the team plays. This is a new age of media where newspapers are dying and television and especially social media are taking over. I always assume good faith, and I know that you’re trying to keep to Wikipedia guidelines. Obviously it’s “whataboutism” but there are various articles with less sources and less notability. I believe Wikipedia is meant to be a source of knowledge and that if an article is well sourced and true, it should remain. Especially when it passes it’s subject specific notability, and obviously WP:GNG supersedes Wikiproject Football, but it’s worth noting. Again, it’s not like you can’t readily find out who Leigh Veidman is from a simple Google search. 405footballfan (talk) 13:17,17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The OKC Fox 25 article is the type of article that gets classified as a routine signing article. They are fine for sourcing a certain transfer in an Wikipedia article but generally does not constitude as a significant coverage when it comes to AfD's. I completely understand that this is frustrating as I have been at your end in a similar conversation early in my Wikipedia days. Veidman's article might very well be kept, depends on the closing admin, but note that if no more significant sources are added to it then there is a good chance that it will be nominated again for AfD. I highly recommend having always at least WP:THREE good sources when creating an article, it is more often than not enough for it to stay out of AfD. Best of luck. Alvaldi (talk) 18:14, 17 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. Daniel (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zionex

[edit]
Zionex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be notable. Basically promotional. PepperBeast (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:36, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forum on Media Diversity

[edit]
Forum on Media Diversity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to have WP:SIGCOV. No real indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:37, 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 no consensus. No consensus to merge either...potential merge discussion should take place at article talk page(s). Daniel (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Nelson

[edit]
Judy Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(1st XfD) The article has never been more than a stub (over a decade), Notability seems to be a bad breakup and two books. Part of Wikipedia:Shortpages? (3 sentences?) Only references are her own books. Creating author seems to have had most articles deleted. Mjquinn_id (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment NOM (Augment): I originally saw it as WP:SHORT. I just tripped over an almost 20yr old 3-line stub, that told me nothing about the person. Utterly no malice WP:AGF. It didn't belong under WP:Tennis; certainly not notable there...as she is not a tennis player; therefore WP:BLP1E (there is no BLP3E?). If WP:LIT can do something with the article, then great. (Maybe WP:WPWW?) I could not find references for her other than her two books (at least about her being an "author"). I assume there is a lower book # limit? (WP:BK didn't seem to apply?) She did not seem to be linked to any pages other than Martina, Lesbian and Palimony.
+ I do not know the page creator at all...BUT, I often find when a number of articles are created by someone, then deleted...some WP:POV might be involved. Probably at least a WP:NOR issue, using her own books as reference?
= If this XFD, causes the article to become useful; then my job here is done. Mjquinn_id (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of those are valid deletion rationales. We don't delete stubs: we expand them. BPL1E isn't applicable: she's notable for three things (a relationship and two books). The creator is irrelevant unless you can show a COI or some sort of bad faith, and our standards for referencing were quite different in 2007. Finally, deletion is not cleanup. pburka (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Martina Navratilova. Just because there are reliable sources discussing a person, a stand-alone article isn't necessarily warranted (and certainly not obligatory). Malia Obama and Barron Trump are some noteworthy examples from recent history. While Nelson and her books received coverage in Washington Post, Baltimore Sun, Seattle Times, among many other outlets, her notability seems to stem mostly if not entirely from her relationship with Navratilova, which was the subject of her first book (and perhaps impetus for the second). Her relationship with Navratilova might thus be considered an extended single event, per WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:BLP1E: media coverage and biographical gleanings during and subsequent to the relationship was directly related or incidental to coverage of the relationship. Unlike other partners of Navratilova like Rita Mae Brown or Nancy Lieberman, Nelson does not appear to have independent notability for anything before or afterwards. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BLP1E states, We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: 1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. Sources cover Nelson in the context of multiple events, i.e. her relationship with Navratilova, her palimony lawsuit, her life after the relationship, including her later relationship with Rita Mae Brown, and her two books. 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Writing two books indicates she did not remain low-profile. 3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. The events are significant, are mentioned in the Navratilova article, and Nelson's role in the relationship and the palimony suit are substantial and well-documented. So it appears WP:BLP1E does not support a delete/merger. Beccaynr (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC) There is also coverage of the palimony lawsuit that includes biographical information and detail, e.g. Orlando Sentinel, 1992, New York Times, 1992, Associated Press, 1992, and a little more on Nelson's post-relationship, post-lawsuit life: News & Record, 1992. Beccaynr (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Navratilova is also notable only for "an extended single event", i.e. her 31 year tennis career. pburka (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Additional sources have been added in the discussion. She's not known for "one event", but for several books. The fact that they both refer to one specific thing is not really that important here. /Julle (talk) 09:55, 18 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. Daniel (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bad (2007 film)

[edit]
Bad (2007 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 21:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back in Business (2007 film)

[edit]
Back in Business (2007 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 21:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nylon cover models

[edit]
List of Nylon cover models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST: "Nylon cover models" are not, as far as I can see, discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Completely unsourced. Lennart97 (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:56, 16 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 draftify (with existing draft article deleted to make way). Due to the time of the revisions, a histmerge is going to be chaos. Daniel (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Mensah

[edit]
Jacob Mensah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Attempted to draftify but failed as Draft:Jacob Mensah already exists. Subject does not currently pass WP:NFOOTBALL as has never played in a game between two clubs playing in a league listed at WP:FPL. Coverage to date seems to be mostly brief transfer announcements and passing mentions in Dorset Echo match reports so WP:GNG does not appear to be met as of typing this. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Govvy; this is the best solution as the current draft is incomplete. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:33, 14 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 Scientology beliefs and practices which will allow a merge if desired. Daniel (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assist (Scientology)

[edit]
Assist (Scientology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think that assists are notable enough for a stand-alone article. I couldn't find any in-depth secondary and independant sources. I have read several books about Scientology, and assists are only ever briefly mentioned as a form of spirtual healing/grounding technique and that Scientology advocated its usage after 9/11. I think that information regarding assists could be included as part of an article about Scientology beliefs/practices like other religions (ex. Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses), although an article like that for Scientology does not yet exist. Clovermoss (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Clovermoss (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Clovermoss (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Clovermoss (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clovermoss, a couple of points, it might be worth nominating the similar article at Touch assist as well. There is a potential merger target at Scientology beliefs and practices. TSventon (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon Thank you for your input. I really appreciate it, especially the wikilink. I must have had a typo or something when I tried to search for it. I'm not sure if merging would really be useful in this case because the article as it is is really promotional. I do think that a sentence or two about assists could eventually be included in the Scientology beliefs and practices article. Clovermoss (talk) 13:35, 14 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. Daniel (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Augusta, Gone

[edit]
Augusta, Gone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 19:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:23, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Card Payment Network

[edit]
Electronic Card Payment Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I suspect this fails WP:GNG, partly from reading the article and partly based on the author, who has a history of creating terrible articles, and (full disclosure) I just indefinitely blocked. Unfortunately, because of the language issue I am unable to do WP:BEFORE. I'm hoping that we can get some participation in this AfD from Farsi speakers. In any event, it should be the community that should decide whether to retain the article. Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fouche, Georgia

[edit]
Fouche, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only substantial evidence of this place is the passage from the placenames book, which really isn't enough. Fouche is a ridiculously common name in those parts, and searching is dominated by both the name and by a "Fouche Gap Road". I did find a history of the county which has two name drops of the place, neither of which describes it at all. The topos show a single house up until they show a lake which drowned the area late in the last century. Best guess is that this was a 4th class post office at the mills, but I can't prove that either. I just don't think this is notable. Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a local congressman with the last name Fouche obscures the searching. Found a reference to the post-route coming from Fouche's Mills, and a few appearances in lists of post offices, but the brief Georgia Place Names listing doesn't indicate notability and the sources found don't either. FWIW, this list of post offices includes populations for many of the others, but not one for Fouche. Hog Farm Talk 01:31, 14 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 Jo O'Meara#Discography. Daniel (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With Love (Jo O'Meara album)

[edit]
With Love (Jo O'Meara album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page fails to meet the WP:GNG for music-related releases. livelikemusic (TALK!) 18:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)|[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:24, 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 keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rakhwala (1971 film)

[edit]
Rakhwala (1971 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can only find 1 Critical Review (The Hindu), but WP:NFILM requires 2 reviews. I couldn't find any others in a WP:BEFORE Donaldd23 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just as well it has two reviews then. :-) † Encyclopædius 06:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the "review" you added is a passing mention about a song in the film, not really a review that would establish notability per WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, but I can see it being applied to WP:GNG and making it pass that way. Let's see if other editor's agree. Thanks! Donaldd23 (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:27, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carmine Guerriero

[edit]
Carmine Guerriero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's pretty clear that WP:BIO is not met and I don't believe that WP:PROF is met either. PROF 8 is the only possible criteria which could be relevant, but since the journal was only founded last year, it seems unlikely that it is "a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." SmartSE (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 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 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. Daniel (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Betontod

[edit]
Betontod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable band. No independent coverage. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:20, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Moon (2005 film)

[edit]
Bad Moon (2005 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE, appears to fail WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Great source analysis by Cunard, more than enough to warrant an article. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 05:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 莊幼芬 (2005-07-01). "懸疑《惡月》連環殺人命案" [Suspenseful "Bad Moon", a serial homicide case]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-07-18. Retrieved 2021-07-18.

      The film review notes: "內容描寫患有憂鬱症，精神失常的專欄女作家，懷疑現任整形醫師丈夫與她前夫所生的女兒有曖昧關係 ... 劇情懸疑緊湊，觀眾可享受推理樂趣。"

      From Google Translate: "The content describes a female columnist suffering from depression and mental disorders, suspecting that the current plastic surgeon husband has an ambiguous relationship with the daughter of her ex-husband. ... The plot is suspenseful and compact, and the audience can enjoy the fun of reasoning."

    2. 莊幼芬 (2005-04-23). "夏于喬靈異海報活見鬼" [Kimi Hsia's supernatural posters show ghosts]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-07-18. Retrieved 2021-07-18.

      The article notes: "《惡月》由尹祺執導，夏于喬、柯淑勤、林立洋主演，夏于喬飾演的啞巴少女為報復母親柯淑勤與舞蹈老師林立洋發生性關係，穿著火紅睡衣自殺。"

      From Google Translate: "Evil Moon is directed by Chi Yin, starring Kimi Hsia, Samantha Ko Shu-chin, and Lam Lei [zh]. The dumb girl played by Kimi Hsia committed suicide in red pajamas for revenge on her mother, Ke Shuqin, who had sex with dance teacher Lin Liyang."

    3. 葛大維 (2005-07-01). "韋苓春風滿面說惡月" [Estrella Chen talks about Bad Moon in spring breeze]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. D4.

      The article notes: "暑假西片強強滾，國片商中影公司不退縮，趕在農曆鬼月來臨前，推出恐怖驚悚片「惡月」，柯淑勤、韋苓、尹昭德、林立洋為影片造勢，其中和印尼帥哥舊情復燃的韋苓，最是春風滿面。 「惡月」描述從婚外情衍生的陰靈附身的恐佈事件，柯淑勤、韋苓片中勢不兩立，戲外和氣，但穿著清涼、比辣，謀殺攝影底片。"

      From Google Translate: "In the summer vacation, the Western film is strong, and the Taiwanese film company Central Motion Picture Corporation does not back down. Before the ghost month of the lunar calendar, it released the horror thriller Bad Moon, with Samantha Ko, Estrella Lin, Chao-te Yin, and Lam Lei in the film. Among them, Estrella Lin, who has revived his old relationship with the handsome Indonesian guy, is the most spring breeze. Bad Moon describes the horror incidents of ghost possession derived from extramarital affairs. In the film, Samantha Ko and Estrella Lin are not at odds with each other. They are gentle outside the play, but they are dressed in cooler, more spicy clothes, and murder photographic negatives."

    4. 唐在揚 (2005-07-02). "世界大戰 史匹柏的外星人，不一樣了" [World War. Spielberg's alient are different]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. 10.

      The article notes: "「惡月」是中影出品的懸疑驚悚片，由尹祺執導，影星林立洋、柯淑勤、夏于喬、韋苓等人主演。全片敘述林立洋與柯淑勤是對恩愛的夫妻，還有一個可愛的女兒夏于喬，但某日夏于喬卻突然跳樓自殺。一年後，夫妻兩人特別到山中渡假屋遊玩，盼能揮別傷痛，但女兒的靈魂卻在林中若隱若現，這樣柯淑勤的憂鬱症發作，而此時又有一個三級片女星韋苓刻意纏上林立洋，整個事件的幕後，好似有著不可告人的複雜秘密，這究竟是怎麼回事 本周"

      From Google Translate: "Bad Moon is a suspense thriller produced by Central Motion Picture Corporation, directed by Chi Yin and starring movie stars Lam Lei, Samantha Ko, Kimi Hsia, Estrella Lin, and others. The whole film tells that Lam Lei and Samantha Ko are a loving couple, and there is a lovely daughter Kimi Hsia, but one day Kimi Hsia suddenly committed suicide by jumping off the building. A year later, the couple went to the resort in the mountains, hoping to say goodbye to the pain, but the soul of the daughter was looming in the forest, so Samantha Ko’s depression was onset, and at this time there was another third-class actress Estrella Lin deliberately harasses Lam Lei. Behind the scenes of the whole incident, it seems that there are ulterior and complicated secrets."

    5. Less significant coverage:
      1. 王麗娟 (April 2010). "黑狗夜奔: 專訪電影導演‧尹祺交大電工61級" [Black Dog Night Run: Interview with Film Director‧Chi Yin Jiaotong University Electrician Class 61] (PDF) (in Chinese). National Chiao Tung University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-07-18. Retrieved 2021-07-18.

        The article notes: "2005 年，中影公司的《惡月》是尹祺首次嘗試拍攝驚悚題材，內容描述一名少女的墜樓事件可能與精神病患的自殺有關。"

        From Google Translate: "In 2005, Central Motion Picture Corporation's Bad Moon was Chi Yin's first attempt to shoot a horror subject, which describes how a young girl’s falling from a building may be a suicide related to mental illness."

      2. "林立洋慶生玩柯淑勤奶" [Lam Lei celebrates birthday by playing with Samantha Ko's breasts]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2004-08-25. Archived from the original on 2021-07-18. Retrieved 2021-07-18.

        The article notes: "木瓜霞昨到電影《惡月》（原名《魔鬼假期》）的拍攝現場，為林立洋、夏于喬慶生。" From Google Translate: "Papaya Xia went to the filming scene of the movie "Bad Moon" (formerly known as "Devil's Holiday") yesterday to celebrate Lam Lei's and Kimi Hsia's birthdays."

      3. 葉文正 (2006-05-01). "夏于喬甩小開 桃花朵朵開" [Kimi Hsia dumps son of a rich family. Peach blossoms blossom.]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-07-18. Retrieved 2021-07-18.

        The article notes: "之前感情不順時，她與鄭元暢拍的《愛情魔戒》、及陸續拍攝的電影《惡月》和單元劇，收視及票房成績也都不理想，導致她非常難過，還一度想要退出演藝圈出國讀書。"

        From Google Translate: "When her relationship was not going well and [Kimi Hsia] and Joe Cheng's film Magic Ring, the film "Bad Moon", and unit dramas were not satisfactory in ratings and box office results, made her very sad and want withdraw from the entertainment industry and study abroad."

      4. "韋苓打片裙飛露褲褲" [Estrella Chen in film skirt flies and exposes trousers]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2005-07-01. Archived from the original on 2021-07-18. Retrieved 2021-07-18.

        The article notes: "韋苓和林立洋、柯淑勤等人主演的恐怖片《惡月》本周上片，韋苓昨宣傳此片，... 阿霞霎時懂了，韋苓是為了搶救國片票房，幫《惡月》宣傳才出此「下」策。"

        From Google Translate: "The horror film starring Estrella Chen, Lam Lei, Samantha Ko, and others was released this week. Estrella Chen promoted the film yesterday. ... Ashia quickly understood that Estrella Chen had made this "lower" strategy to save the box office of the national film and to help promote "Evil Moon."

      5. "林立洋夜戲拍出時差" [Lam Lei's night scene filmed by time difference]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2004-10-06. Archived from the original on 2021-07-18. Retrieved 2021-07-18.

        The article notes: "林立洋最近與柯淑勤、夏于喬合拍驚悚片《惡月》，... 林立洋還說，他平日生活作息正常，但《惡月》多在半夜拍攝，讓他很痛苦，甚至出現時差問題".

        From Google Translate: "Lam Lei recently filmed the thriller "Bad Moon" with Samantha Ko and Kimi Hsia. ... Lam Lei also said that his daily life is normal, but "Bad Moon" is mostly filmed in the middle of the night, which caused him a lot of pain and to have time difference issues."

      6. 項貽斐 (2005-05-27). "柯淑勤惡月知憂鬱苦" [Samantha Ko's Bad Moon knows depression]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. D4.

        The article notes: "在驚悚恐怖片「惡月」裡，柯淑勤飾演罹患憂鬱症、遭邪魔附身的女子，現實生活中，她也曾飽受憂鬱症之苦。"

        From Google Translate: "In the thriller Bad Moon, Samantha Ko plays a woman suffering from depression and possessed by demons. In real life, she has also suffered from depression."

      7. 賴怡佳; 林欣若 (2006-05-22). "搶救國片 鬼片給你靠？" [Rescue national movies. Rely on ghost movies?]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. D3.

        The article notes: "台灣電影市場長久低迷，鬼片成為台灣片商爭相拍攝的題材。 去年中影推出恐怖片「惡月」遭滑鐵盧；"

        From Google Translate: "The Taiwanese film market has been sluggish for a long time, and ghost films have become Taiwanese filmmakers' subject matter. Last year, Central Motion Picture Corporation released the horror film "Bad Moon" and was hit by Waterloo;"

      8. Lee, Daw-Ming (2013). Historical Dictionary of Taiwan Cinema. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. p. 434. ISBN 978-0-8108-6792-5. Retrieved 2021-07-18.

        The book notes about Chi Yin: "The following year, Yin made a thriller, Bad Moon/E yue (2005), co-directed with Lu Willing/Lu Jincheng."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bad Moon (simplified Chinese: 恶月; traditional Chinese: 惡月) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:32, 18 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. A borderline case where the citation metrics are laid bare for everyone to see. At the end of the day, reasonable people examined the data and came to different subjective conclusions, so there is no policy-based reason for any result other than that supported by the majority. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Shan Lin (chemist)

[edit]
Yu-Shan Lin (chemist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Associate prof, seems a bit run of the mill, has an early career award, plus "Machine Learning in the Chemical Sciences & Engineering Award" doesn't seem notable as it's the inaugural award of it. I don't see how this article passes WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. I don't have a feel for if the citations are suitably high to pass on that basis, but I'm doubting it. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The Junior Faculty award is peanuts, but the Dreyfus Program award isn't - it comes with ~$100k. H-index in the 20s is generally regarded as okay around here, I believe. Not a celebrity but a scientist who is getting noticed, so I would say this is a weak keep. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Struck as per below. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elmidae, I'm hesitant to consider an inaugural, non-wiki-notable prize of the Dreyfus Foundation as an example of (emphasis mine) certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts. Unlike the other NPROF C2 examples, it is not awarded to an individual specifically in recognition of their prior contributions or scholarly potential but rather is disbursed for a specific research project (the program even states Awards are not made directly to individuals). This is substantiated by Dr. Lin's website, which says Our lab receives the Dreyfus Program for Machine Learning in the Chemical Sciences & Engineering Award! This is a collaborative project with Prof. James Murphy in the Department of Mathematics at Tufts. which indicates the project is co-headed. To me, the prize is essentially the same as any other private research grant secured by PIs, which would seem to be in a different spirit from the intent of C2. I do think it partially satisfies C1, but just isn't quite at the level for C2. JoelleJay (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are good points. I agree. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a fan of this being written by a COI author. Even with this award, she's still an early career associate prof and this is too soon. Many of the publications in the h-index have 6+ authors so not as indicative, and there is no significant coverage about the subject here at all. Reywas92Talk 18:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:NPROF#1 this is not stellar but passes the bar with an h-index of 24 and 13 papers with > 100 citations. --hroest 18:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    NPROF1 says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Merely looking at raw citations of papers, of which she is one of many authors, does not demonstrate that they have "a significant impact" and is not shown in "sources", which would involve independent media coverage. Reywas92Talk 14:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: Sources here do not actually imply media coverage (where did you get that idea?) but also citations counters like Google Scholar/Scopus. This is literally clarified in Notes 1.a "(a) The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." So using citation counters is the most typical way to satisfy criterion 1. I agree that her citations and h-index are not extraordinary, but they pass the bar for someone who has had a "significant impact" on their field. --hroest 17:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the rest of the guideline. "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others." This does not satisfy criterion 1. There really needs to be more substantive independent coverage with some depth beyond merely counting citations, including indicating what the "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" actually is. Reywas92Talk 17:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, citation metrics need to be interpreted within their context of the database and discipline of the subject.That is exactly what I (and others) here are doing. You are setting standards that are way higher than what WP:NPROF requires and what is required in other AfD discussion. You are making very strong leaps from what is written in NPROF, "Approaching with caution" does not equal "does not satisfy criterion 1". Nowhere in WP:NPROF does it require "substantive independent coverage with some depth", on the contrary it is quite clear that citations metrics or one (of multiple) ways to satisfy criterion 1 and show substantial impact in the field. --hroest 20:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reywas92, Hannes Röst is correct that independent coverage is not necessary for NPROF; unlike practically every other SNG (like NSPORT), where meeting the criteria presumes notability but GNG ultimately must be demonstrated, NPROF operates completely outside of GNG requirements. I do think identifying what her "significant impact" is would be beneficial for sussing out what is DUE in the article, but isn't necessary for notability discussions unless other criteria aren't applicable. JoelleJay (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I don't think it's applicable to say "Her articles have a number of citations, screw substantive sources." I understand NPROF works a bit differently, but it's not adequate to say there is "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" merely on low-quality metrics without evidence of independent assertion that not only are these publications impactful, but that this junior faculty author in particular has had significant impact. It's absurd that this SNG would go from multiple sources of substance to zero sources of anything. Reywas92Talk 16:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Reywas92: if you are unhappy with the way WP:NPROF operates, please take it to the talk page there and dont disrail the AfD discussion of one person by applying different standards to this AfD than all others. To be fair and consistent, we should apply the same standards to all articles and the applicable ones in this case are WP:NPROF. There are very good reasons why WP:NPROF is the way it is. --hroest 18:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And you're applying NPROF poorly by doing nothing but looking at the h-index. Reywas92Talk 19:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your helpful assessment of my abilities, while I wait for a detailed academic assessment of her work from you that goes beyond your contribution "she has many co-authors". --hroest 14:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Dr. Lin's Scopus citation metrics are around the median of 175 of her coauthors and coauthors-of-coauthors in this field (paper cutoff 14):
Total citations: avg: 6109, med: 2001, Lin: 2449.
Total papers: avg: 110, med: 53, L: 53.
h-index: avg: 30, med: 20, L: 23.
Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 605, med: 275, L: 285. 2nd: avg: 348, med: 181, L: 253. 3rd: avg: 252, med: 136, L: 147. 4th: avg: 210, med: 118, L: 126. 5th: avg: 181, med: 106, L: 124.
Top first-author: avg: 339, med: 147, L: 124. JoelleJay (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that she's a chemist and papers in chemistry have a little over half the impact factor of other biomed sciences; in particular she is working in computational chemistry, which generally has fewer authors per papers: most of her papers have one to three coauthors. I tend to think the baseline you are using for comparison is somewhat too high for her field. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chalst, thanks for the input! Are you saying she has a couple biomed papers with many coauthors who mainly publish in biomed rather than chemistry, and they are therefore inflating the coauthor metrics? I did try to exclude people who were in very different fields from the analysis (for example, there were a ton of collaborators of her coauthor Martin Zanni that published in "youth education" rather than chem, and several who focused on SWNTs which are a different-enough topic from vibrational spectra of water and spectroscopic examination of protein folding that I also filtered them out), but I potentially missed some. On the other hand, her having biomed papers and coauthors would certainly elevate her own citation metrics above those of her pure-computational chem peers, so it might not be appropriate to remove her direct coauthors in those disciplines either. JoelleJay (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - on a formal reading of NPROF, I could justify a weak keep separately on either the award of a new research achievement prize from a reasonably prestigious foundation, per Elmidae, or arguing her research output falls this side of the publication output divide, per Hannes Röst. While I can see the delete case, its a pretty abstract deletionist defence of the NPROF standard not backed by any concrete problems with the article. Generally, I think these arguments are insensitive to the reasons why NPROF is the SNG that is definitely more relaxed than GNG: articles that pass NPROF but not GNG tend to be encyclopedic, verifiable, lack issues, and often make good merge targets for ATD outcomes of borderline science concepts. I don't find the delete rationale compelling, and the article as it stands is of decent quality. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep - a borderline case, but I think just enough notability re NPROF with a good chance of becoming more notable in time. KylieTastic (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chalst a decent article about an early career scientist with early career awards despite a narrow and somewhat novel field of research. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as she appears to meet NPROF, albeit narrowly.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Given her awards and sufficiently high citation. My very best wishes (talk) 03:43, 21 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. Daniel (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asudem

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Asudem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, article has been deleted multiple time for lacking coverage, nothing has changed since previous deletion, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 16:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 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 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. Daniel (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back by Midnight

[edit]
Back by Midnight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, despite the caliber of the cast, this film did not receive the significant coverage needed to qualify for a stand-alone article per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 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 and salt, per the request of several comments below. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Al Suleiman (journalist)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ali Al Suleiman (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article's correct title, Ali Al Suleiman, is currently SALTed, meaning this article was silently created under a different title in order to bypass the protection (it's also SALTed in several other language projects). The subject seems to lack notability, and the numbers of social media followers it boasts aren't mirrored by the engagement rates (the posts can barely scrap two-digit likes). The subject's Wikipedia attempts are thoroughly explained at fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Ali Suleiman. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 14:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you claiming that all entertainment news coverage counts as promotional? What determines if something is promotional or not? The articles are months apart and have separate interviews with the subject in question. SilverserenC 16:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that’s not quite what I mean. I’m not very familiar with Turkish media, but many of the English Wikipedia articles for the news sources cited in this article note that they have been accused of functioning as propaganda for the Turkish government. And since most of the citations here are about how great it is that Al Suleiman is helping export Turkish culture, then these might not be independent sources for this subject. I can see the case for notability given the number of sources over time, but looking at the sources again, I see some other issues that altogether don’t seem to be truly independent or reliable:
  1. Shehab News Agency: There’s no author listed for the article
  2. TRTWorld: No author listed. Concerns about independence noted at TRT World. Other sources note that Suleiman does translations for TRT, so this isn’t independent.
  3. Isktiklal: No author listed.
  4. The English Wikipedia article for Yeni Şafak doesn’t lend credibility to this source.
  5. I’m not familiar with Draft:Diriliş Postası, so I’m not certain if it’s considered reliable. If it is, then this source seems to contribute to NBIO
  6. Aksam seems okay for NBIO, but as an interview with very little author commentary, it’s mostly a primary source.
  7. Anadolu Agency is state run, so it’s not independent on the topic of exporting Turkish culture.
  8. Syria.tv doesn’t list an author
  9. Daily Sabah is criticized as a propaganda outlet for the Turkish government, so it isn’t independent. The article has no listed author.
  10. Orient News is repeating reporting from other sources, but I’m not familiar with them.
If Diriliş Postası and Akşam are considered reliable, independent and secondary, then I would change my vote to Week Keep. Even those two sources are written like press releases. POLITANVM talk 17:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most non-English news sources don't include authors (as international news sources like the Associated Press often do not). That's not really an example of reliability or not of a source. And being state run is only an issue of concern if the information it was being used for was political and governmental in nature. I don't think the entertainment news section counts in that regard? SilverserenC 18:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense for the non-author sources. For the state-run/affiliated sources, I might consider the them as a notability indicator if it’s a topic they’d have no interest in, but these articles are explicitly to promote this journalist and how he’s helping bring Turkish culture to the world. I’d be similarly skeptical about Voice of America writing effusive articles about an otherwise unknown American figure.
I’ll change my vote to Week Keep, since there are an abundance of sources that aren’t explicitly labeled as third-party contributions, but I am still skeptical that they are completely independent of Suleiman, given the promotional tone of every article about him and his long-term attempts to get a Wikipedia article.
And so it’s clear, it’s obvious you made this article in good faith and with no conflict of interest. This AfD is a great example of how bad faith editors, edit warring and sockpuppets get in the way of creating an encyclopedia. POLITANVM talk 18:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never replied to anyone's emails, including the sock puppetteers'. I made the article properly because I consider the subject notable with independent interviews and coverage months apart. SilverserenC 16:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to throw accusations, but the way you created this article by changing the title in order to bypass an active protection from creation without any prior discussions is shady. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 19:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t think it’s helpful to question Silverseren’s intent at this AfD, when it’s perfectly believable that a long-term contributor to Wikipedia would take it upon themselves to create an encyclopedic version of an article that had previously been deleted repeatedly because of sockpuppetry. If the main issue before was CoI, sockpuppetry, and lack of demonstrated notability, these issues are solved a non-CoI editor creating a more NPOV article with sources believed in good-faith. A previous AfD where the reason was “created by blocked user” isn’t very relevant here.
I’m similarly skeptical about the independence of most of the sources given the long history with this article and the subject, but let’s discuss the sources, not the editors. POLITANVM talk 19:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I re-created the article because I consider the subject notable. I am not connected to the sockpuppetteer (and I consider them rather annoying in their constant account making and messaging to people), but regardless of their actions in the past that made the topic SALTed, I consider it an actual notable biographical subject that was unfortunately ruined by a POV-pushing sock user. Therefore I redid the article from scratch, looking up sources on my own and writing it completely from nothing. The sources spread out over a year of time are specifically about the subject and his translation activities. Here's some examples from the current article:
This coverage is entirely about the subject and includes separate quotes and other subject matter, showing they are independent interviews. I'm not sure how this couldn't meet WP:GNG requirements. People above are claiming promotion, when they are separate pieces of coverage months apart and I am certainly not promoting anything. SilverserenC 16:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Silver seren, please see the sources analysis on trwiki. You'll found that all of sources you mentioned above (1+2+7+8), confirmed as "unreliable" by trwiki users. Best --Alaa :)..! 16:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it. It's a pretty bad analysis, as it gives no evidence for its claims. It just says "isn't clear". Also, interviews are allowed for notability of a subject, especially if the article that includes the interview has biographical information on the subject. Kinda weird those aren't allowed on TrWiki. SilverserenC 16:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Silver seren: Regardless of your personal views on the notability of the subject, bypassing the salting was not the best move. For example, you could have created the article first as a draft and explained about the salting on the Talk page of the draft. Then, you could have asked other editors to address the notability issue. If other experienced editors agreed with you, you could then have asked permission from the salting administrator to move the draft to article space. By doing it your way, you have actually made the article less likely to be kept because of its history.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The administrator I was dealing with had no interest in draftifying it at all and refused to work with me whatsoever. My interactions with them were less than helpful. So I remade it from scratch (as a draft) on my own. And then moved it once I was done. SilverserenC 16:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't refuse to work with you; they just refused to do what you wanted. You were also told the same thing there about your sources that you were told here by Alaa--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And the claim made about the sources in both instances don't stand up to scrutiny, as I noted above. The actual news articles were all dismissed on TrWiki as interviews, which is not an unreliable source indicator here (and it is perplexing that it is there). And, yes, the administrator refused to move a draft to userspace, making claims about banned users, despite the fact that it is directly in guideline that one is allowed to take over edits of banned users and support their inclusion oneself. SilverserenC 17:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: the one mentioned by the nominator in their original nomination post. I’m pretty sure the article was created under a second name variant too and has been deleted at AfD twice. Mccapra (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
here’s one Mccapra (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: I don't see any AfD mentioned by the nominator in their nominating message. The one you mentioned is the only I'm aware of; it's been noted by others. It cannot be used for G4 as there was no community consensus. Before that could happen, the article was speedy deleted per G5 as it had been created by a sock. Although it wouldn't change the rule, I did take a look at the article at that time and compared it to the current article. There are many similarities, but there has been some updating by Silver seren. As for other AfDs, someone would have to dig them up; we can't assume they exist.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ok I thought the red text article title in the nomination was a previous AfD but apparently it wasn’t. An article was created with the exact same title as the current article on 12 June 2021 and then deleted. However it seems that wasn’t deleted at AfD as I’d mistakenly thought but under one of the speedy criteria. So the present article is the third version in one year but there isn’t a previous AfD consensus. Mccapra (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As @Mccapra: pointed out in the AfD he mentioned, those articles smell like mere PR. The subject religiously keeps track of all the articles mentioning him, which leads me to believe that the coverage is just as inorganic as the social media followers numbers. It's impossible for me to assume good faith in this situation, sorry - it's gone on for too long. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 19:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the previous discussions were about a sockpuppetter repeatedly recreating an article and using things like google links and other non-reliable sources to make a puffery filled article. I looked at the actual news sources available, considered it notable, and made a draft from scratch using only those news sources and only on direct biographical information. The only "puffery" I allowed to be included was the one line about social media numbers, since several of the sources mentioned that. SilverserenC 18:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realize those social media numbers are most likely not organic, considering the abysmal engagement? Plus, those sources you used, have widely been exposed as unreliable by Turkish Wikipedia users. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 19:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not really our business on whether they're organic or not? And the sources were most definitely not. The list linked to before just had a bunch of statements that interviews weren't reliable and that they couldn't confirm on others. That didn't expose anything at all. SilverserenC 19:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So here we have a page that has a title that does not conform to MoS because an editor has chosen to bypass the protected (by me)correct title at Ali Al Suleiman. Normally I'd block an editor who did this, but I've been persuaded that the editor concerned isn't a sock and the disruptive behaviour probably doesn't quite merit a block. Nevertheless, I don't know why we are wasting time on this serial self-promoter and sock master. He's not notable, and shouldn't be rewarded with an article here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I must report that the subject has created yet another sockpuppet and has been desperately canvassing. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 09:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed, I was canvassed to this discussion by Football lover 2020. I recuse myself of any further comment. Polyamorph (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeffed Football lover 2020 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wholeheartedly believe Silverseren re-created the article in good faith, considering how he found out about in the first place (I'm talk page stalker, sorry :d). However, the sources just seem not independent and/or significant to me. A relatively inexperienced me said this a year ago, and now I agree even more with it. ~StyyxieTalk? ^-^ 11:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, multiple entire articles on the subject, written months apart, and with separate interview questions and answers aren't independent or significant? Can you elaborate on that? SilverserenC 16:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more than happy.
  • First of all, several months apart? All of them are from Summer 2020. This regular translator suddenly became the biggest talking point out of nowhere?
  • Interviews are just an echo of what a person says and therefore are considered primary sources/non-independent material.
  • Other Turkish sources (some not in the article) include the keyword "... kimdir" in their title, which means "Who is ..." General consensus is that these sources, regardless of the publisher, are unreliable and/or not independent. These are not written by the publisher themselves but are rather copied from somewhere else. A major website like Hürriyet takes its "Who is [random football refree]" text from the Turkish Wikipedia. This is just an example, texts may be taken from anywhere, including the person itself (In return for some $$$). Heaven knows where these come from. You can ask on the Turkish village pump if "Kimdir" sources contribute to notability, and everyone with slight AfD experience will say no. This is just how the lazy and greedy Turkish media works. Editors have to have this in their mind when using them.
I do not blame you for not knowing the things above, but I want this article deleted because the subject is not notable, not because of this stupid socking history. ~StyyxieTalk? ^-^ 18:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except these sources aren't from July and don't use "Kimdir":
So where do these fit into all that? Thank you for informing me, by the way. I am basically done with this AfD, but I do want to know about this sort of thing for the future, if I encounter Turkish sources again. SilverserenC 19:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt along with the other salted targets. Long-term self-promoting pest, subject clearly doesn't meet WP:BIO; the few articles from news sources appear to be all from the same PR release. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what PR release is that? Especially considering the articles are months apart and many are interviews with different questions and responses from the subject? You can't just claim it's all PR without actual evidence for that. SilverserenC 16:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think I am willing to give up at this point, however. I still consider the subject notable and the coverage significant. But the socker has made this impossible to deal with. If he had just shut up the moment I made a statement on the original article talk page that I would clean it up and he had left, never made another account, and stopped bothering everyone, maybe this would be a better discussion. But, yeah, he ruined it. It just really annoys me though, because POV sockpuppetters like this make it incredibly difficult to write articles on actually notable people that they keep pushing. Since I don't think permanent SALTing is a good method at all, because it means that any future coverage showcasing notability even more strongly is that much more difficult to actually present. But, yeah, I give up. I wish he had shut up and gone away. Oh well. I wash my hands of this. SilverserenC 17:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Wikipedia, like life, is not perfect and even if the subject were notable (very dubious with some space-filling outlets repeating each other's content), it would be unhelpful to reward an LTA. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt It's a problem when all we have to go on is WP:INTERVIEWS. Even if they're in reliable publications, they're largely primary rather than secondary, so don't contribute to notability claims. Girth Summit (blether) 06:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt obvious sockpuppet creation & not really notable as per the reasons stated above several times, and apparently it's just for advertisement; no need to point out that the sources are likely not reliable and all of them are interviews. Ahmetlii (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. The type of citations included in the article do not appear to meet WP:GNG. I will point out that "salting" does not prohibit article creation in the future, just means that there will be oversight if it is does created. Onel5969 TT me 14:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per previous discussion and the French page. /Julle (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I doubt it matters, noting here for the record that I was solicited by email (from an account with 0 edits) to come !vote keep. No clue why; I'm on WikiBreak and almost never !vote at AfD regardless. I've forwarded the email to a CheckUser. If other people get similar emails, might be worth putting {{notavote}} on this, but I'll leave that to the discretion of others. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin: I too got an email for some reason. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neveselbert: The person who emailed me has now been blocked. If the one who emailed you hasn't, you should forward the email to an admin/CheckUser. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As mentioned by another editor I, too, was WP:CANVASSED here via email with the appeal to !vote "Keep". Chetsford (talk) 19:35, 19 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) 00:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark V. Bacino

[edit]
Mark V. Bacino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible conflict of interest editing on a non notable singer who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER. A before search leads me to self published sources, user generated sources and directories. Needless to say this is also a GNG fail. Celestina007 (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Oppose/Keep) Subject of article meets Wikipedia: Notability(music) Criteria set forth under Wiki article of same name. Namely guideline #5 listed under “Criteria for musicians and ensembles.” Subject has multiple albums released on independent record labels of note in the US & Japan. See music industry standard authoritative source, All Music confirming subject’s said label releases.
https://www.allmusic.com/artist/mark-bacino-mn0000280762/discography — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModLang1128 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Striking sock-puppet vote. --JBL (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that Parasol and DreamCrush are notable record labels that confer notability is a bit of a stretch... Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Parasol Records (& their associated imprints) was/is an important proponent of ‘90s - ‘00s power pop and indie pop, having released two album efforts by the article subject as well as many seminal bands of that genre - Velvet Crush, Soundtrack of Our Lives, Jack Logan, Bettie Serveert, etc. See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasol_Records?wprov=sfti1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModLang1128 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added additional research-info and detailed references to improve article and further reinforce subject’s notability. In addition to article subject’s musical work (having multiple album releases issued in subject’s name by notable independent labels, Parasol - US & Nippon Crown - Japan), subject is also a journalist. With numerous educational articles and columns written by subject having been published by several notable, commercial publications (Guitar World, Songwriter’s Market, etc.) allowing subject to meet Wiki standards/consensus re: journalistic notability. Additionally, as a producer, subject has worked in the television field, having compositions used by major television networks (see CW Network, “Vampire Diaries” reference for example) further meeting Wiki musician notability standards under “Criteria for musicians and ensembles” citation #10. Lastly, subject’s television audio engineering work earned him a 2021 Emmy nomination (see article citation #19) which further supports subject’s notability as cited in “Wikipedia: Notability (awards and medals)” as well as in “Criteria for musicians and ensembles” citation #8. For these reasons above, I would respectfully ask that the “marked for deletion” notice be removed from this article. Note - I have no affiliation with subject as inferred above (just a fan, author & historian of the power pop genre). — ModLang1128 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Conflict of interest editing as aforementioned, and more worrisome is no reliable source has been used to establish notability nor any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO expressly satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article needs cleaning up, but subject is notable. Kevin19781 (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC) — Kevin19781 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • (Oppose/Keep) Citations/references, while not entirely impeccable, do demonstrate a certain level of notability in the aggregate, given multiple pursuits (music, journalism, Emmy nomination). It can be argued that notability requirements have been fulfilled, as a number of discreet criteria benchmarks have been met. Article also does not appear to be libelous in any way. Albums released by two independent labels with sizable rosters (see label Wikis) that appear confirmed and reviewed by reputable, independent, secondary source (AllMusic Guide citations) indicates professional notability as musical artist WP: MUSICBIO”/#5. As writer, appears to have numerous pieces published by known commercial entities (citing Guitar World author page and others) meeting suggested journalism notability standards [“Wikipedia:Notability (journalists)”/#1]. Emmy award nomination (as cited via 3rd party web reference) for TV work also indicates notable status WP: ANYBIO”/#1. Additionally, article is not an orphan, as Parasol Records Wiki article links back. jaskocd (talk) — Jaskocd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking sock-puppet vote. --JBL (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No depth-of-coverage from reliable sources; not seeing anything else that addresses WP:MUSIC either. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No in-depth coverage from secondary RS - a few short interviews in dubious sources, some affiliated sources, but not enough to build an article around. Girth Summit (blether) 14:33, 20 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crosskeys Inn

[edit]
Crosskeys Inn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and has been tagged since March. I could not find any media coverage. The books I can find about it are about a murder that took place there, and not the pub itself. The only source I can find is a book from 2019 that is just ordinary information on pubs. I doubt it counts any because it likely isn't reliable. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have made your point well. My WP:BEFORE found none of this. Withdrawn. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:36, 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 14:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Beber

[edit]
Massimo Beber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been unsourced for a decade. His academic profile falls far short of what is required for WP:NPROF: he was never a full professor and his publications have single-digit citation numbers on Google Scholar. I also have not found third-party coverage of him that would help towards WP:GNG. Overall, I think the article ought to be deleted. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:15, 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 redirect to 2024 United States Senate elections. ✗plicit 14:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2024 United States Senate election in Maine

[edit]
2024 United States Senate election in Maine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is WP:TOOSOON to write a meaningful article about this election, which is why there is almost nothing but empty headings. When there is something to say, then we can create this article. User:Namiba 13:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 13:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to redirect to 2024 United States Senate elections it's a suitable redirect target. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:26, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Tchaikovsky Competition 2011 – Piano

[edit]
International Tchaikovsky Competition 2011 – Piano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is nothing but a long list of minutae about one category of one music competition. There are no similar pages (for the other 15 competitions held) or, for example, the other categories of the 2011 event (violin, cello, and voice). Further, the minute and expansive specificity of the detail (the contents lists over 185 items for example) means it is only of interest to a very narrow audience. Finally, once the header links (which are deprecated) and the in-line external links (also deprecated) are removed, the remainder is just an unreferenced and unverified mass of dot point details (with no prose whatsoever after the lead). Also surprised that this article has been here for 10+ years without being questioned (i.e. deleted/redirected) earlier. JabberJaw (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JabberJaw (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What an absolute mess. I've never seen such a massive article have zero sources and not a single word of prose after the lead. A google search leads me to a number of reliable sources covering the 2011 piano competition, so it arguably satisfies the notability requirements, but there is absolutely no hope of fixing this article unless we blow it up and start over. Mlb96 (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul International Yacht Club

[edit]
Istanbul International Yacht Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I somehow managed to miss the old PROD from 2009 on this, but regardless: Complete WP:NORG fail, not to mention WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE search exclusively leads to mirror sites that copied this article over, this includes the unlinked references. No other news items to be seen, not even passing mentions. AngryHarpy‍talk 11:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tail Swallower and Dove

[edit]
Tail Swallower and Dove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Could be a redirect, but an editor insists on recreating without providing referencing. Onel5969 TT me 12:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets criteria 1 of WP:NALBUMS.RF23 (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TIGSource

[edit]
TIGSource (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no indication of notability for a blog website fails WP:GNG. A draft is already there Draft:TIGSource GermanKity (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No argument offered by nominator why the existing sources in the article don't indicate notability. It seems well-referenced to me. If the argument is that the article is small, that is WP:SURMOUNTABLE.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I found some minor coverage in Wired about TIGSource's role in launching Minecraft, and added it. The creator also appears to have been improving the article since it was nominated. In the meantime, I found the forum mentioned in several other articles and linked them. This appears to be very influential in the indie gamer world, but just doesn't have the mass media coverage we'd expect. It would be nice to see an indepth profile, but its influence on the industry, particularly its role in launching Minecraft, shouldn't be in doubt. And I notified the author to delete the duplicate draft. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:30, 16 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 12:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the cover of The Fader

[edit]
List of people on the cover of The Fader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST: no independent reliable sources discuss "people on the cover of The Fader" as a group or set. Lennart97 (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:30, 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mamita Debbarma

[edit]
Mamita Debbarma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It would appear to me that this article about a living person fails any number of tests of notability (WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO) and so on. To be concise: it would appear that Ms Debbarma won the won the specific Tipura state contest in 2018, was not a contestant in Femina Miss India 2018 and then disappeared from view. As always, happy to be proven wrong. Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:55, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berg Party

[edit]
Berg Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This political party is only municipal in outreach, has no historical importance and no political consequence. It fails WP:GNG and every other Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The suggestion that a political party that is only municipal in scope has no political consequence is (as history teaches us) false. Further, I note that the Swedish-language version of Wikipedia's article on this party was able to find enough references and significance to keep their corresponding article. Part of the problem here may be systemic, linguistic and cultural bias. RomanSpa (talk) 11:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Berg_Municipality#Politics. Even looking at Swedish, a party exclusive to a single small town of 7,000 people that has never received 2,000 votes in an election is not going to be notable here. Reywas92Talk 14:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NB WP:NEXIST. Significant coverage in Swedish media, party was the result of internal Centre Party feuds, received national coverage throughout its existence; passes the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Surely it doesn't fail every guideline? ;-) Joking aside, a local party in a small Swedish municipality is unlikely to meet WP:ORGCRIT, but I think that the criteria are met here. The current sourcing is abysmal, but the sv.wiki article includes several sources: this is a regional newspaper, so wouldn't work on its own, this however is an in-depth article in Dagens Nyheter and this is is from Sveriges Radio. Looking for other sources, I find this from (a local division of) Sveriges Television and this which is fairly in-depth, from Östersunds-Posten, also a regional newspaper but slightly weightier than the first source I linked. Taken together, I think these sources show that WP:ORGCRIT is met, especially since they were published at different times, the earliest in 2006 and the last in 2014, so it is not a case of brief and ephemeral interest. I will undertake to add these sources and develop the article based on them, provided it survives the AfD. --bonadea contributions talk 11:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hej Bonadea, am in heated agreement and thanks for highlighting some relevant sources. Just to make a minor clarification, beyond the GNG, I think WP:NONPROFIT is the more appropriate criteria here, rather than ORGCRIT, as the latter's criteria are designed to deal with the problems associated with promotional material of for-profit enterprises: These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Bonadea above. /Julle (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Bonadea has shown enough sources for notability under the nonprofit guideline, showing that the article does not fail every guideline.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:38, 20 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 12:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor of Public Administration

[edit]
Bachelor of Public Administration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not warrant its own page outside of description as a type of Bachelor's Degree. Not able to find reliable sources that detail waht (if any) standards exist for such a degree that could provide content for an entire page Paragon Deku (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning for this page specifically is that almost everything on it currently is worthless (either incomprehensible unsourced gibberish or self promotional unsourced gibberish), it’s not in a major discipline where reliable sources discuss average standards and applications for it, and frankly even if we could build a page on this topic we really are better just starting over. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article has no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article doesn't even have a single reference. Nitesh003 (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not only does it have no references, it's all questionable anyway: employment opportunities include "private cities"?? I'm not quite sure what that means. The whole article would have to be scrapped and started from scratch to make it worthwhile. It looks like someone had a competition to see if they could keep typing for five minutes on the subject of "Bachelor of Public Administration" without repetition, deviation or hesitation... Elemimele (talk) 17:29, 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 12:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Dhar

[edit]
Vishal Dhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO. The sources cover him in context of his company and are not sufficient to establish notability. M4DU7 (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable independently of iYogi. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:10, 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Bonifacio Avenue, Marikina

[edit]
Andres Bonifacio Avenue, Marikina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article of an unremarkable road (not a highway as it is not one of the components of Philippine highway network) that lacks sources since September 2017, yet no one made an attempt to rectify this. Probably this is just among the dozens of roads that many locals claim as highways even if these are not. Fails WP:GEOROAD. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:09, 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 redirect to Jordan, Guimaras#Barangays. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

San Miguel, Jordan

[edit]
San Miguel, Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A barangay article that resembles more of a directory or listing of establishments and landmarks than a real encyclopedic article. Such type of Philippines-related articles have been point of contention for the past decade, with latest discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?) and the then-active Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan. Consensus remains that only barangays that are really notable by reliable sources are considered as worthy to have Wikipedia articles.

For this barangay, it contains basic info like statistics, barangay captain, and natural description like geographical location. But most of it is essentially a directory, and this violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY rule. It does contain some sources, but these do not mainly talk about the barangay itself and are mainly about the landmarks that are listed here, thus all are not reliable. This article, therefore, should not benefit from WP:GEOLAND and must be nuked. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:09, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avian WE

[edit]
Avian WE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A case of WP:DELETEMERGE, WP:COI. Searches for in-depth coverage in independent references have yielded nothing promising. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. If not delete, then WP:MERGE with WE (firm). RPSkokie (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. RPSkokie (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:09, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carol number

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Carol number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Briefly mentioned in a MathWorld article and included in OEIS, which in my view do not amount to significant coverage. Also mentioned on the website PrimePages. See also the arguments made in the 2009 AFD (no consensus). Adumbrativus (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is similar both in subject matter and in the sources found:

Kynea number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment The OEIS entries for both sequences call them "easy" and don't say "nice" [13][14]; per the meanings of the keywords, it seems like these particular OEIS entries aren't making a case for significance. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both in the absence of published mathematical research on these topics. MathSciNet lists nothing on this topic. Google Scholar lists a few but they appear to mostly mention the topic in-passing and be unpublished or in low-quality or predatory journals. My comment from the last AfD still seems relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Provided sources are weak and the names are odd, but I am impressed by the fact that both topics have about 10 articles each in other language entities of Wikipedia, some even considerably longer than the English ones. While the other entities have different guidelines, the core principles and goals (to document the past and present knowledge of the world in a neutral and accessible way) are the same, so I wonder if all those contributors to these articles have been misled into thinking this would be important enough to spend considerable amounts of their time to document these numbers in this encyclopedia. Obviously, they must have found it worth the inclusion. Yeah, other stuff exists, but at least for me, non-mainstream topics are often the most interesting ones to read and think about - often enough leading to new insights and ideas. Ideally, someone would bring by a more substantial source. But for as long as the math "as is" is correct and the article does not contain incorrect statements, I would rather have one weak article on a borderline topic too much included then some information (possibly interesting to some and boring to others) missing in this encyclopedia. Perhaps, there is also some value in the topic and article serving as a link between other (more notable) topics, thereby helping to provide a richer context or to ease navigation between other topics. People might run into these terms and wonder what they are, and even if the Wikipedia article would tell them that these numbers are not very important for most people, this is already an answer - better than having nothing on the topic at all and leaving readers puzzling. Therefore, I would give this the benefit of doubt. If it can't be kept, perhaps it can be merged into other more general articles. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Both are vanity pages about recreational mathematics. These numbers haven't even been subject of a serious paper! Which wouldn't be sufficient for notability. What we have here is very thin gruel. It seems that this guy came up with these formulas to search for large primes, failed to find anything, and that's it. Tercer (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per the reasoning of PrimeHunter in the last AfD, this does not clear the neologism bar for me. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Random bits of recreational mathematics that never even made it big in recreational-mathematics circles are probably not harmful to have around Wikipedia, but they're not really what this project is about, either. At the moment, I doubt they rise to the level of warranting mention in another article, and we'd need to reach that standard before we consider giving them articles of their own. XOR'easter (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not backed by mathematical research. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 16:20, 20 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) 23:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Sabah FA season

[edit]
2017 Sabah FA season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stats page that was a contested PROD last year but no rationale was provided. I still don't see how this meets WP:GNG. It is cited entirely to blogs and a now-dead stats website. For reference, the coverage cited was like this for each match, so no significant analysis or even a basic match report, just stats. I chose two matches at random to see if I could find a match report but was unsuccessful. For Kuantan v Sabah, I found Sofascore and Besoccer. For Perlis v Sabah, I found the same sources as above again and also Live Result and Soccerway.

This is basic, bare minimum stats coverage that any football game receives and is not at all indicative of significant coverage which is required to address the topic directly and in significant detail. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which reliable news websites covered this season in detail? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:10, 19 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) 23:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DaySmart Software

[edit]
DaySmart Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability. A quick WP:BEFORE search didn't return anything worthwhile. Kleinpecan (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kleinpecan (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The MCSB award is somewhat questionable. First of all, its scope is limited to Michigan only and small businesses only. Second, the video about the winners 2012 doesn't mention the subject: https://vimeo.com/41492975 Third, the description of this specific category doesn't mention any significant accomplishments. The Inc5000 award has a wider scope, but the subject ranking is 4534, almost at the end of the list. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is purely promotional. Looking at the sources will show they are plain advertisements. Being ranked in 2020 at only 4534 on a "5000 list for ten consecutive years", means it wasn't notable when created by an SPA and is still not. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:57, 19 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 08:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nwngbai 2

[edit]
Nwngbai 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG; unable to find any reviews, significant analysis or awards. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:27, 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 12:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Krate Recordingz

[edit]
Deep Krate Recordingz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a non-notable American record label. Fails WP:GNG theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable record label (artistic endeavor), no roster of notable artists or releases, no indication of any artistic influence by genre or region, no length of history. Non-notable as a corporation. Non-notable by GNG. I found no independent, indepth, reliable sources discussing the topic. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I don't think the lone supposedly notable act signed to the label, Wax Murdaraz, are notable either, but I haven't done a deep search. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:58, 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. czar 09:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Charles Fripp

[edit]
Frederick Charles Fripp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject doesn't seem to be notable per WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Current sources are social media or the publications he has written for. I can't find any reliable sources with significant discussion of him. Aranya (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:53, 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 no consensus. Looks like the WP:SIGCOV is just on the fence for this one. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ardita Sinani

[edit]
Ardita Sinani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a mayor of a small town (pop. 34,000). Does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They definitely don't pass WP:NPOL, but they may pass WP:GNG. I found lots of news hits, although mostly not focused on Sinani, e.g. this Balkan Insight article (1). A little more in this Russian article in Danas (2). I'm concerned that most of their coverage is in non-English sources: Mccapra, what non-English sources did you look at during WP:BEFORE? Anything useful? Suriname0 (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found this which is a hyper-local news outlet item citing an MP’s Facebook profile saying that he and Sinani hosted a delegation from Kosovo. Other news items from the same source are this announcing that she and her rival candidate both got COVID and this and this which I think are reasonably in-depth coverage of her political perspectives and plans, though again they are hyperlocal.
This piece in Danas is significant because it’s in a national daily, but it’s an interview.
This records the fact that she was elected. I’m not sure what the status of the site is but it appears to me to be a piece of local press.
This does look like a piece of extended coverage of her views.
This I can’t get to translate for some reason but it looks like an announcement of her election win, not in-depth coverage. That’s all I found. Mccapra (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Preševo#Politics. So to summarize, we have two substantive coverages in a national daily (but one's an interview) and English-language coverage of her views on one issue, plus a smattering of WP:ROTM coverage around her election. To me, that's right on the edge of WP:GNG, so I could be easily convinced to switch to Keep if an additional source focused on Sinani was identified. Otherwise, it looks to me like there's no problem with putting info about Sinani into the Presevo article, beefing up the elections section with a paragraph on Sinani's election and views (based on the sources identified above). Suriname0 (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment thanks I’d support that and should really have thought of it myself before nominating. Mccapra (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to some local newspapers, she is an elected Mayor of Preševo therefore, deletion is not the right decision. Yet, the article needs to be improved with existing reliable sources. Mehmood.Husain (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:POLITICIAN: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:53, 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 close. This is now a completely different text than the one being nominated and discussed (early in this discussion). If anyone has objections to the current state of the article, it would have to be renominated again. Geschichte (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Earth in science fiction

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Earth in science fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is an indiscriminate collection of various forms of media presenting the extremely broad subject of "Earth" as it appears in the extremely broad category of science fiction. Furthermore, most of the text is largely copied straight from plot descriptions and summaries. This article is an example of what Wikipedia is not. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Without secondary sources providing an analytical framework, it faces a problem: Where it is not wp:indiscriminate it is wp:synth, and where not wp:synth, it is wp:indiscriminate. It's a really interesting topic, though. It's just that it's not Wikipedia's role to invent a subfield of literary research.OsFish (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Weak Keep (strengthening if improvements continue) (changed vote) per WP:Hey. In my opinion, sources have been found to support a general article on this concept as well as organise it for the integration of other material that minimises OR risk, so long as it is OK per policy to achieve notability through tertiary sources (and if I am right in understanding the two encyclopedias cited should be considered tertiary). WP:GNG policy specifies secondary sources, but I don't see why encyclopedias wouldn't establish notability.OsFish (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Idle comment Others !voting have also remarked this looks like a notable topic except for the lack of secondary sources offered. I had a look on google scholar for various permutations of the subject such as "depiction/representation/portrayal of (the)(planet) Earth in science fiction" and found nothing. I'm very surprised. If anyone knows anyone looking for a career-establishing literature PhD topic... OsFish (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Without the abovementioned secondary sources providing an analytical framework, its simply OR. With it, how does it avoid being an essay? It is an interesting topic. I'm no great scifi readers, but I disagree with the lede. Dune, the Foundation trilogy...TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lede say "An overwhelming majority of fiction is set on or features the Earth. However, authors of speculative fiction..." (emphasis mine). While clearly unsourced, I don't think it's false nor contradicted by Asimov or Herbert. pburka (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. I don't like the overwhelmingly without properly collated stats. It's all about sourcing (lack of).TheLongTone (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLongTone: And now this statement is sourced. Daranios (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a little shocked that it wasn't deleted when I nominated it in 2017 but that was probably due to lack of participation. It's still equally as problematically indiscriminate.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That entry in the Greenwood encyclopedia (judging by 227-228) is pretty much the sort of thing I expected/hoped to find to support notability. The thing is, WP:GNG specifies secondary sources as key for notability. Encyclopedias are tertiary. There's no explanation in WP:GNG as to why tertiary would not count towards notability and it doesn't make immediate sense to me. Of course, it's only one source, and that isn't really enough. But would two or more encyclopedia entries be OK? Also, is it worth looking for sources that cite that entry in Greenwood? OsFish (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @OsFish In my experience, in practice, tertiary sources are often sufficient for establishing notability - and this is something worth discussing at WT:GNG. In particular, coverage in specialized encyclopedias like the ones I mentioned above is never, in my experience, disputed as insufficient, even if it is all we have. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - possible second source Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia By Brian Stableford (2006, Taylor & Francis, ISBN 9781135923747) has an entry on Earth. But I can't see it from Google books. Is there anywhere we can appeal for people who might have it? OsFish (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Great finds Piotrus (though it's a shame we cannot see the last page and what sources possibly are used there) and OsFish! I think together the establish notablity. Here is a version of Science Fact and Science Fiction where (I hope every)one can view the article about Earth. It's a good two pages of small print (p. 137-139). About half of that contains historical facts and old examples where there is no clear disctinction between science fiction and philosophical speculation about scientific issues. The other half fits to our topic. Both sources support some parts of the common themes as well as more prominent examples like The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, showing that the current content, while in need of trimming and sourcing, is not without worth. They also have nice potential additions not yet covered like the Hollow Earth concept, or "A planet is too large, and its lifetime too long, to be comfortably accommodated within fiction as a topic in its own right, although that has not prevented the production of such panoramic overviews of Earth as those contained in...". And then there are more secondary sources that deal with smaller aspects of the topic, like Sith, Slayers, Stargates & Cyborgs, which talks about the alien invasion and anthropocentric aspects, or Heroes, Monsters and Values: Science Fiction Films of the 1970s, which discusses the recurring trope of an alien visiting Earth as a messiah figure.
So I ask all Delete voters (and the closer) to take these newly-come-to-light sources into account for their decision. Daranios (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone is willing to immediately totally rewrite the article, I still support deletion per WP:TNT and WP:REDLINK. That will give people more impetus to write a new article that is better.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm I think this has been just done (TNT and rewrite without deletion). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the revised version further.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page is now a promising work-in-progress and so our policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Further work should not be disrupted by the chilling effect of impending deletion. See also WP:HEY. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for the work TompaDompa. Asked to discuss the revised version, I unsurprsingly would be happy to see it kept and further expanded. It no longer has the major issues brought forth against it by the nominator and deletion voters. Daranios (talk) 10:40, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sungodtemple (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just another Perl hacker

[edit]
Just another Perl hacker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Half of the article is listing out examples of Just another Perl hacker, which we don't need. There isn't much info found online about this either, leading me to believe there aren't sufficient sources to establish notability. Based on the comments below there are enough reliable sources and I withdraw the nomination. Sungodtemple (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Perl#Perl_pastimes, where it is mentioned. This a bit of perl culture that has been documented in reliable sources, e.g., [16], but not in great depth. I haven't found the in-depth sources needed to satisfy GNG and support a standalone article. As an alternative to deletion, per our policy WP:ATD, I suggest redirecting to the short Pastimes section in the Perl article, or alternatively, to Randal L. Schwartz, who popularized the practice. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, looks like the link might have died (or I borked it); I can no longer see the pages. It was two pages of coverage in a textbook, which seemed compelling to me. I thought it was different than the 2nd, but of course I can no longer verify that. I won't fight to save this article; I'll leave that for more interested parties. Just cause the sources exist to support an independent article doesn't mean it shouldn't be Redirected. Suriname0 (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the page loaded after a few retries. It was [www.oreilly.com/catalog/advperl2/ this book], page 262-263 in Chapter 10, which as you point out means that (1) and (3) are the same. Apologies for the confusion. Suriname0 (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Here's another book: [17]. I think more sources can be found by searching japhs. Significant coverage in two books and mentions many other places clears the bar for me. ~Kvng (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. That makes this a marginal case for me and in the spirit of consensus, I would support "keep" as an alternative to redirection. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:22, 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 keep. ✗plicit 08:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajith Kumar

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Rajith Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable professor and actor. The subject fails both WP:PROF and WP:NACTOR. The article fails WP:GNG too. Nakshathra Nair (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nakshathra Nair (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nakshathra Nair (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Nakshathra Nair (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Toddy1, above mentioned sources are just few statements about his activities and all. I'm from Kerala and I know the language. The sources you provided here is not valid. The articles are from paid websites, those does not support to justify your points. Nakshathra Nair (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The google search you complain about gives articles in The Times of India, The Indian Express and The Hindu. These are mainstream newspapers, not paid websites.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:24, 15 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 delete per G5 as created by sockpuppet of Weareme234. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zubair Alam

[edit]
Zubair Alam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage, Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS and non notable. If I search about him on Google it doesn't show anything about him. I have found only a few articles related to his death. Nitesh003 (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nitesh003 (talk) 05:20, 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. I'll be adding the anecdote to William Lambie. Sandstein 07:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Lambie (footballer)

[edit]
William Lambie (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn't seem notable as there is barely any sources, and information that doesn't seem notable or truly correct, and the main information of the article resembles much of William Lambie, the article is also an orphan

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
bizarre there isn't one for 0-49, most other clubs have them! GiantSnowman 21:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to William Lambie and delete per Piecesofuk findings. Pinging, @GiantSnowman:, @Geschichte:, @Joseph2302: for reconsideration of new findings. Govvy (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Curiouser and curiouser - right, delete (and that's my final answer) GiantSnowman 10:01, 15 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 07:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slees Mills, Missouri

[edit]
Slees Mills, Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one is an instance of blatant misrepresentation of the non-GNIS source, which says that Slee's Mill is A steam mill on Lick Creek (q.v.), southwest of Palmyra by three or four miles, on the Warren road. So named for the owner. Searching under this name brings up basically nothing. The 1884 History of Marion County, Missouri has some passing mentions to Sallee's Mill which is similar in type and location, but searching under that name doesn't bring up much more. This looks like an old rural mill that has been largely lost to history and was somehow mutated into a community. Hog Farm Talk 03:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 03:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 03:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete There's no feature marked on small-scale topos, nor is there anything that looks like it could have been labelled. GNIS says that the original source is a large-scale topo from 1909, so the location is a bit vague. It comes across as yet another misinterpreted dot on a map. Mangoe (talk) 13:35, 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. Sandstein 07:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Macks Camp, Missouri

[edit]
Macks Camp, Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one is a lakeside resort/fishing camp, not a community. The area appears to be Macks Camp Avenue, with a Warsaw address, and this newspaper article calls it a resort. Most other results are to passing mentions of "Macks Camp, Warsaw" which indicates that this is viewed as an outlying part of Warsaw, not a separate place. There's a Macks Camp Boat Ramp mentioned in some fishing guides, but that's about it that I can find. This doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND, and probably isn't worth mentioning in the Warsaw article. Hog Farm Talk 02:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 02:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 02:41, 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 redirect to De La Salle University – Dasmariñas#Heraldo Filipino. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldo Filipino

[edit]
Heraldo Filipino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:STUDENTMEDIA. Article is unsourced. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:34, 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 02:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anamika Chawhan

[edit]
Anamika Chawhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails GNG , No Significant coverage Iamfarzan (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Iamfarzan (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 04:44, 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 redirect to Ahir. Sandstein 07:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gwalvanshi

[edit]
Gwalvanshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is about an Ahir clan and is not suitable for existence as a seperate article on Wikipedia. Few content which can be seen here can be included somewhere in Yadav or Ahir. Heba Aisha (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:49, 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. Sandstein 07:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Komarova

[edit]
Sonia Komarova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Along with their twin, Sasha Komarova, there is not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG. The only decent piece is the Russian Vogue piece, which is about both of them, which I guess counts for 1/2 an in-depth article each. I will be nominating the other twin as well, but do not feel bundling them together is warranted. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 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. Sandstein 07:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Komarova

[edit]
Sasha Komarova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Along with their twin, Sonia Komarova, there is not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG. The only decent piece is the Russian Vogue piece, which is about both of them, which I guess counts for 1/2 an in-depth article each. I will be nominating the other twin as well, but do not feel bundling them together is warranted. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_July_13&oldid=1034835597"