Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 02 June 04 >

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 redirect to South of No North (short story collection). (non-admin closure) Ambrosiawater (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maja Thurup

[edit]
Maja Thurup (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:NBOOK. No sigcov, no reviews, no awards. Do not believe that this author is sufficiently notable to pass notability down to all his works. Rogermx (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I don't think Bukowkski meets NBOOK 5. I think of NBOOK 5 as referring to authors like Virgil, Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Wordsworth, for whom it is common to have entire college classes, academic journals, conferences, and scholarly societies focused around their works. I have been able to find evidence of perhaps two dissertations on Bukowski, but I could not find a Bukowski society or journal. Bukowski is certainly a major author, but I don't think his works are "a common subject of academic study." So unless the story meets NBOOK 1 or GNG (which it sounds like it does not), I think the best idea is to redirect to the volume as suggested. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 20:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nominator, I would be willing to change to Redirect. Thank you everyone. Rogermx (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to 100 Gecs. – bradv🍁 15:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Les

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

American singer who, from the lead of the article is "best known for being one half of the hyperpop duo 100 gecs". Following last year's AfD the previous article was merged into 100 gecs. I can't see anything to suggest that WP:BANDMEMBER is no longer applicable. Setting aside involvement in 100 gecs, there is not enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO John B123 (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Simply being best-known for involvement in one group doesn't mean a subject hasn't shown notability outside of that role - There are plenty of examples here, but I'm sure we would all identify Ringo Starr, for instance, as a member of the Beatles before anything else. In this case, Les has received considerable coverage ([1] [2] [3]) related to "Haunted" since the previous AfD. The article's GQ and Rolling Stone references also discuss Les' music and life prior to her involvement in 100 gecs, which I would argue is coverage not directly related to her involvement in the band. AviationFreak💬 18:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge again to 100 gecs. To the previous voter, comparing this Ms. Les to Ringo is a real stretch. She has some older solo works but they are only mentioned in articles that are really about 100 gecs, or in one case collaborator Katie Dey. Her recent song "Haunted" has indeed gotten some press, but it is only described in each cited article rather briefly and the press seems to have decided it is a one-time side project so far. Per WP:TOOSOON she does not yet have enough of a solo presence to merit a personal article here. The fact that she released the solo song can be mentioned at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AviationFreak. Ringo Starr she may not be, but she's definitely notable and the sources within the article indicate notability and coverage aside from her being in the band. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 10:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AviationFreak. Rab V (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 100 gecs. Simply does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, all good coverage is in relation to that band. Onel5969 TT me 04:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, merge or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Facebook effect noted above seems to be kicking in. The last two voters have done little else on Wikipedia except this. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:54, 6 June 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 due to lack of participation. Not opposed to speedy renomination for deletion. Missvain (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Hauschka

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Rudolf Hauschka (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 reliable sources exist to write a biography for Rudolf Hauschka. He is a little known anthroposophist writer. I am fond of finding little known historical individuals and improving their pages with reliable references but when you look up Hauschka nothing exists apart from some anthroposophy websites which are not reliable. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was wondering how I knew his last name. Turns out he founded Dr. Hauschka, a very popular organic skincare line. I was shocked to see it did not have article, so, I took the liberty of creating a start. So, that is something to take into consideration - Dr. Hauschka. Missvain (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Being bold here since no one has commented!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some sources should be added, but Dr. Hauschka is not only an anthroposophist writer but also the co-founder of the popular organic skincare line and of of the 'Wala Heilmittel GmbH'. He was a forerunner concerning natural cosmetics.Tec Tom (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian-American Congress

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

AfD tag was applied by an IP with the edit summary "There is no such organization! As has been discussed for 15 years already. So, it's way past time to remove this fake nonsense". After looking at the article and doing some WP:BEFORE work, I'm taking on the nomination duties myself. Article has existed without references since its creation in 2006, and I couldn't find any hint that the organization even exists, much less that it meets notability standards. I was tempted to tag it for a speedy but refrained since if it's a hoax it's not obvious enough for G3 and the claim of being "the biggest Romanian-American cultural organization" could be interpreted as enough of a claim of notability to avert an A7. That said, the organization is not even listed at the Romanian embassy's list of Romanian-American organizations unless it's being confused with the "Congress Of Romanian Americans", for which I didn't find enough to establish notability either and whose web domain appears to have been taken over by a Portuguese-language film site. --Finngall talk 15:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 15:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 15:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, just delete it. The existing name and content don't match the sources anyone has found, and nobody has found sources to support the existence of the existing name and content, let alone to establish notability. This AfD will still be here if I or anyone else wants to create an article for the "Romanian-American National Congress", which is described and sourced above, and probably isn't the group this article is meant to be about. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It can be assumed that either this is a blatant hoax, this is all a really stupid lie to make the Romanian-American National Congress look good to people who can't look things up for themselves such as us, clearly, this is actually the Romanian-American Foundation erroneously under a different name (note similar purpose, though the RAF only came into existence in 2008, two years after this article was written), there actually was a separate "Romanian-American Congress" that existed briefly but went nowhere and was given this fake article for no reason, or this is a secret society we shouldn't know about and we're all going to die. It's probably one of the first four. Regardless, this is unsourced, the name doesn't exist, and the claims the article makes are false. Congratulations on catching the oldest hoax on the wiki, folks! AdoTang (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a non profit company in California. According to "cabusinessdb", the company was founded in 2016 and it was already closed by the local authorities. Anyway, there are no good sources. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say that that's probably not it, since this article was made in 2006, but that's quite a coincidence. I wonder what they did to get shut down. AdoTang (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Max Kästl

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

Unimportant person, only two obituaries as reference 20th c violin concerto (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Max Kästl[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete A lot of oddities here: the nominator is also the original author of the page, and that first version references a page which largely duplicates it, and which Internet Archive picked up within days of this articles creation. The two obits I could not pull up, but I note that the Baltimore Symphony wasn't started until about a decade after this fellow died. Mangoe (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

USA Water Ski & Wake Sports Foundation Hall of Fame and Museum

[edit]
USA Water Ski & Wake Sports Foundation Hall of Fame and Museum (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:NORG and WP:GEOFEAT; also contains no sources. PROD tag was removed. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 18:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 18:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 18:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 18:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:54, 3 June 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) 11:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Bhadauria Damras

[edit]
Sanjay Bhadauria Damras (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, non-elected politician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Already moved to draft by other reviewer Draft:Sanjay Bhadauria Damras. GermanKity (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Goodpaster

[edit]
Patrick Goodpaster (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 college football player, cannot actually find proof/statistics he ever played a game for the Ravens, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 16:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to South Shetland Islands#Islands. I am required to list an article to merge this nomination too - please choose whatever article is the best - or create one, if necessary. Meaning, it doesn't have to be South_Shetland_Islands#Islands. No one really gave a solid merge option so I just chose the best one I could find reading the comments. TY. Missvain (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nessie Rock

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

Unsure how notable this is, or even if it is accepted outside Bulgaria. Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then they should all be AFD'd.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.
In this particular case, the sources provided ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article comprising, in addition to name and location, information such as: description of the geographic feature; related features; etymology of the name; maps showing the feature’s vicinity, related features, and the feature itself (nameless at the time of mapping); and visualization of the feature through interactive satellite imagery.
By the way, the amount of information in the article is comparable to that of a good number of other articles in the relevant Category:Landforms of Antarctica and subcategories. Apcbg (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's comparable, you made many of these minimal articles! WP:NGEO is also clear that "This guideline specifically excludes maps, tables, lists, databases, etc., from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." so the notion that because the feature can be viewed on a map or satellite image it is notable is ridiculous. How does listing "related features" establish notability for this feature??? Small rocks are not automatically notable because we know the source of their name and that they are rocks. South_Shetland_Islands#Islands could have a subarticle that really puts these in context of each other with the "vicinity", "related features", and all the generic links that don't actually provide coverage of the topic together. Reywas92Talk 18:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, by “comparable” I meant more informative than e.g. articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and hundreds or rather thousands of equally minimal articles on all kinds of geographic features, not necessarily rocks, whose content is likewise confined to relevant USGS GNIS entries (and which articles I have not written).
Yes those sources are excluded but WP:NGEO goes on to say that “On the other hand, sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability” and, as explained above, the article sources provide a standardized description of the feature and other information beyond name and location, so that we certainly know more than “the source of their name and that they are rocks.” Once again, the WP:NGEO criterion of notability is the available information not the mere listing of sources or related features. Relation to nearby features, mapping and satellite imagery quoted in the article are relevant as they put in context, supplement and illustrate the feature’s original description from the gazetteer narrative rather than just mentioning the feature.
While WP:NGEO recommends in the case of articles on named nature features with inadequate information not deletion but possible article merging in order to keep encyclopedic content, it is usually that a small number of articles on related features are merged. An example of a wider integrated approach applied in practice is the excellent work on the geography of Trinity Island carried out by User:Premeditated Chaos. However, that could hardly be repeated with a single ‘subarticle’ of South Shetland Islands#Islands covering an entire archipelago as suggested, and even possible separate ‘subarticles’ for the larger islands would probably be way too clumsy. Apcbg (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. What about this rock do we know beyond its location and that it's named after Nessie? What is "described"? The only source is http://apcbg.org/gazet-bg.pdf (that you apparently have some relation to (which is okay)) which says "Geographical site: Rock near the northwest coast of the South Bay of the island. Livingston, long 111 m in the southeast-northwest direction and 50 m wide. Area 0.4 ha. Located 340 m east of Lukovo and 4.67 km west-southwest of Erebi. Region: South Shetland Islands. Mapping: Bulgarian from 2009 and 2017. Geographic map: [9] Origin of the name: Named so because its outlines reminiscent of the monster from Loch Ness. Date of approval: 23 April 2021." I see no basis for notability and a small rock island's own article here. "Better than mass-produced GNIS junk that should also go" isn't the most convincing. Reywas92Talk 18:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is "described"? Well, “Rock near the northwest coast of the South Bay of Livingston Island, long 111 m in southeast-northwest direction and 50 m wide, with a surface area of 0.4 ha etc.” looks like a description to me. As for the “mass-produced GNIS junk that should also go” the fact that it has not actually gone doesn’t make your reasoning any more valid. Apcbg (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I struggle to see how one could know anything less than dimensions – I could report the length and width of anything on the planet using Google Earth but that doesn't make them notable because it could be described in such a mundane way. This is the epitome of non-notability for physical features. The fact that they're still here doesn't make your reasoning any more valid either. Reywas92Talk 17:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NGEO distinguishes between existent and nonexistent descriptions rather than between mundane and nonmundane ones. Needless to say, your Google Earth report would be WP:OR. Apcbg (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give some example of a list per WP:Manual of Style/Lists resulting from such merger of articles, if possible also a sample of what exactly content from one of the merged South Shetlands articles would be incorporated in the suggested List of minor features of the South Shetland Islands, and indeed some example of a similar list of geographic features from elsewhere in Antarctica or from whatever other region? Apcbg (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My personal preference when merging Antarctic gazetteer stubs when I was doing that regularly was to merge up to the next closest "large" feature (rocks to the island they are closest to, capes to the relevant bay, etc), but it's hard to do that systematically, especially if there's no obvious nearby feature to merge to. List of nunataks is ugly as sin and really needs to be reworked, but it's an okay example of a list cobbled together from the merging of a bunch of minor geographical features. You could probably do something similar with the Shetland features list, if you actually do want to go for that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it could be possible to merge the minor features discussed here to related nearby ones, and this particular way of merging might probably be the better one. The alternative listing approach may also be applied, yet if we consider the List of nunataks as a sample project, the picture is less than encouraging. If I am not wrong, that list has made little progress since its start five years ago and is nowhere near completion, with just a hundred or so articles on Antarctic nunataks actually merged so far and no apparent enthusiasm for processing the remaining some six hundred ones. In its present form the list hardly brings much of the alleged merger benefits. Apcbg (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well - there is no deadline. Plenty of stuff is garbage until someone does something about it. The ultimate problem isn't the state of that list, it's that Nessie Rock in specific fails GEOLAND, and shouldn't be kept as a standalone. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modular stadium

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

None of the sources seem to be about the general idea of "modular stadium"; the first sentence of the article seems to say that it is about a stadium called "Legacy Modular Stadium", in which case it would be non-notable; in addition to other problems with the sources. The owner of all ✌️ 16:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The owner of all ✌️ 16:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Horizon League Men's Soccer Tournament

[edit]
2012 Horizon League Men's Soccer Tournament (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 college league football tournament, only sourced to the sanctioning league, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 14:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 14:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 14:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shailesh Kumar Yadav

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

Being IAS is not a measure of notability. His coverage is related to single event. But event is not very significant so claims at WP:1E. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ravichandran C

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ravichandran C (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 complete promo. There is claim to be author but no proper reception or discussion of his work. The criticism part is cited from quora. Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:Academic. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very promotional and rather poorly written (standard for these Indian articles it seems, judging by what I've seen from AfD and elsewhere; lovely stuff). A search showed that he does write books, but none are notable, and what I could find from the news aside from an insane amount of cricket articles shows that his most recent newsworthy thing was starting a debate online over a Hindi doctor doing an Islamic prayer for a dying COVID patient, which isn't notable on its own and is probably just routine coverage that isn't going to be brought up again within a week. If this is staying, TNT it, since it's very badly written and is chock full of promotional fluff. AdoTang (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, intro par says, He is a notable atheist, rationalist, author, promoter of science and rationalism, public speaker, blogger, YouTuber and debater. Absolutely not per the references available. Fails WP:Author, WP:ENT, [[WP:]] ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 21:36, 7 June 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) 11:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anmol Preet

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

Promo piece on a non-notable singer. Search finds nothing beyond social media listings etc., and the two sources cited in the article which are mostly about one of his songs and not about himself, so not even close to sigcov. (Previously deleted twice already, hence this AfD rather than speedy.) Fails WP:GNG / WP:SINGER. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Superman enemies. (non-admin closure) Ambrosiawater (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kryptonite Man

[edit]
Kryptonite Man (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 fails WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to trivial mention in junk listicles. The only notable character to use the name has an article. The rest seem to be minor characters without any notability. I don't think there's anything to salvage from this convoluted mess of an article. TTN (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with Kryptonite, List of Superman enemies, &c. As the topic is covered in numerous sources, such as the DC Comics Encyclopedia; The Ages of Superman; In Search of Reality; and The Supervillain Book, it is best to retain the current page and improve it per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 14:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning towards redirect but happy to be convinced otherwise.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:51, 3 June 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 03:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coto River

[edit]
Coto River (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 dab page has only two partial matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:49, 3 June 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. Missvain (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tofiq Musayev

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Tofiq Musayev (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 is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails WP:MMABIO for not having at least 3 fights under tier one promoter (UFC/Invicta) nor hold top 10 world ranking and also fails GNG for fight results/info are routine reports. Cassiopeia(talk) 03:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia(talk) 03:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia(talk) 03:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tofiq Musayev is the champion of a major MMA promotion and was ranked as the top Lightweight outside of the UFC (only losing his spot due to the pandemic and not being able to be active). He holds wins over 4 notable opponents. His page should not be deleted. Champions from other promotions (one championship, pfl, etc.) have wiki pages and they are not as notable as Tofiq.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darbaki (talk • contribs) 05:50, May 28, 2021 (UTC)
  • Darbaki Comment :Hi, As explain to you on my talk page, Rizin has never been a top tier promotion under Wikipdedia WP:MMATIER guidelines. Secondly, the subject has not yet been ranked world top ten in Sherdog or Fight Metrix and lastyly, I have yet to find any independent, reliable English source stated the subject has been signed by UFC. Even if he is signed by UFC (by other languages sources), the subject needs to have at least 3 fights under tier one promoter or has been ranked world to ten to be warrant a page in Wikipedia. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~).. Cassiopeia(talk) 02:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darbaki (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, Shooto quite literally is a smaller promotion than RIZIN. It holds much historical significance for the sport, but realistically cannot be considered a 'Top Tier' promotion in the industry. DREAM and PRIDE are both organizations who were ran by the same executives/producers as RIZIN and many fighters have fought in all 3 promotions (including RIZIN). Many Bellator fighters have wiki pages, many PFL fighters have wiki pages (despite not meeting that criteria). Darbaki (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pride hasn't been considered a top tier MMA organization for a decade, so comparisons with it have no significance. The fact that you found WP articles on other fighters that don't meet WP:NMMA falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Feel free to put those articles up for deletion, but that has no impact on this discussion. Papaursa (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep may not meet MMA notability guidlines but he is an athlete in some areas which is worth of having a wiki page. Ubzed (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia (WP), Ubzed! As this is your first edit to mainspace, there are some things you should know. Deletion discussions are not votes, but rather a discussion of WP policies that support keeping or deleting an article. The main notability criterion is WP:GNG which requires significant independent coverage from multiple reliable sources. Independent means it's not related to the fighter, his organization, family, or company. Significant means that things like interviews, routine sports reporting, and listings in databases are not counted. There are also notability criteria for athletes at WP:NSPORT. The one for mixed martial artists are at WP:NMMA. Unfortunately, Musayev does not meet any of the criteria for MMA fighters and lacks the coverage required by WP:GNG. Notability on WP has a specific meaning, which can be different than people are used to. Editor's personal opinions about someone's notability are considered irrelevant here. Papaursa (talk) 20:36, 9 June 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) 11:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P. C. Sanal Kumar

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
P. C. Sanal 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)

Topic seems to have low notability in wider circles; very few references are available to demonstrate notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vake, Fau

[edit]
Vake, Fau (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. Very poorly written, down to the title.

Article is about a New Zealand amateur MMA fighter that recently died from injuries sustained during an assault. He was a teammate of Israel Adesanya, but that doesn't establish notability on its own. All I could find about him on Google were news reports about his injuries and more reports about his death, but that's really it, and I can't find much else other than player databases or what look like blog posts. Some of the results are from actual reliable sources like The New Zealand Herald, The Sun, and the Associated Press, but that's all I can see, and none of them are linked here as sources. AdoTang (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I just rewrote the article quite a bit to add actual information and make it readable. Regardless, it doesn't really change his notability. Do note that he apparently only played one match, back in 2016 [1]. AdoTang (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiruppur metropolitan area

[edit]
Tiruppur metropolitan area (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 is nominated for speedy deletion , because with this exact name Tiruppur metrolopitan area article is exist in English wiki . And more than this Tiruppur is a part of Metropolitan Area of Coimbatore .

I nominate this article to delete to English wiki administrators — Preceding unsigned comment added by தனீஷ் (talk • contribs) 2021-05-19T08:01:22 (UTC)

Note: Fixed the nomination. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccmtt12345 (talk • contribs) 2021-05-19T11:31:19 (UTC)

[1] [2][3][4]

By Indian government, grade for the city as Metropolis , city must have population 10 lakhs above in metro area, but Tiruppur city population is 963,173 only The cities listed above is also ranked by Indian government for metro city

  1. Chennai ranked 4 th
  2. Coimbatore ranked 16 th
  3. Madurai ranked 31 st
  4. Salem ranked 51 st
  5. Tiruchirappalli ranked 53 rd In India,

No other Tamilnadu cities is graded as metropolis in India.


So Administrators can delete this Article Tiruppur metropolitan area

Sources by Wikipedia national level Articles (India)

  1. List of metropolitan areas in India
  2. List of million-plus urban agglomerations in India
  3. List of cities in India by population

தனீஷ் (talk • contribs) 2021-05-20 :12:45 (UTC)

  • First of all, an metropolitan area or urban agglomeration is generally defined as the municipal corporation and the semi-urban areas with the development by the urbanization spreads out. And most importantly an metropolitan area or urban agglomeration is not defined with 10 lakh popultion, it is a wrong fact.

To add upon in India ,even urban agglomerations with less than 10 lakh population are located. To add upon Vaniyambadi is the least populated urban agglomeration in Tamilnadu. According to 2011 census the top 8 urban agglomerations in Tamilnadu are Chennai Coimbatore Madurai Tiruchirappalli Tiruppur Salem Tirunelveli Erode

The urban agglomerations with population more than 10 lakh in Tamilnadu are Chennai, Coimbatore, Madurai and Tiruchirappalli according to 2011 census(official).To add upon Census is carried out only once in 10 years. [5] [6][3][7] Ccmtt12345 (talk • contribs) 2021-05-20T19:15:19 (UTC)

  • Keep (I think). This is quite a confusing discussion, but I think I've deduced the following. 1) This article was previously redundant with another article, but that's been resolved: the other article has been redirected to this article. There are thus no issues on that front. 2) "Metropolitan area" appears to be a legal designation, with relevance for local urban planning. This means the that topic is notable under WP:GEOLAND. This is definitely not my area of expertise, so please correct me if I've misunderstood something. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Striking; see below[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course this discussion is more confusable ., More than our thought , but, also in my view Tiruppur is not a Metro city , if any metro city means , it must fulfilled with all expected needs for people's anywhere rather than local people's (1). And next, it must be populated with million plus (10 lakhs) but population of Tiruppur in metropolis is 963,173 (2). Next - Tiruppur is part of Coimbatore metropolitan area (3). I recommend English wiki administrators to delete or by your preference Redirect to Coimbatore metropolitan area

Good 💜 Wealth (talk • 2021-05-27 :11:17 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Chennai 4th in urban agglomerations".
  2. ^ "Urbanisation in Tamilnadu" (PDF). Government of Tamil Nadu.
  3. ^ a b "Urban Agglomerations/Cities having population 1 lakh and above" (PDF). Censusindia. The Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India. Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 November 2011. Retrieved 18 October 2011.
  4. ^ "Registration Series Allotted to Regional Transport Offices" (PDF). Government of Tamil Nadu, State Transport Authority. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 September 2012.
  5. ^ "Chennai 4th in urban agglomerations".
  6. ^ "Urbanisation in Tamilnadu" (PDF). Government of Tamil Nadu.
  7. ^ "Registration Series Allotted to Regional Transport Offices" (PDF). Government of Tamil Nadu, State Transport Authority. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 September 2012.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:48, 3 June 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. Going with keep based on the work and arguments presented by User:Beccaynr and User:Nomadicghumakkad. Missvain (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ananth Prabhu Gurpur

[edit]
Ananth Prabhu Gurpur (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. do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:NAUTHOR GermanKity (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator is correct when they say it doesn't qualify for WP:Author. Truly it doesn't. But it qualifies for WP:BASIC sufficiently. For example, India Today [5], The Hindu [6], [7], Times of India [8]. They have sufficient material to contribute to WP:BASIC. There is also a lot of print coverage over the website of the subject that was brought to my notice by the creator [9] that helps establish WP:BASIC. I had also initially rejected the article and didn't take it seriously. I only took it seriously when I saw the coverage of receiving grant from the state government to establish a center of excellence [10] where he is a PI. Hence, cleaned and accepted it. I have myself lost many debates to Beccaynr over WP:BASIC and understood it after a lot of struggle so I don't blame the nominator here. We all learn. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bosh. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The coverage presented is press conferences, awareness campaign promotion involving the subject but NOT "intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" - and I would not call this significant coverage by any means. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC alike. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no way someone could tell that there's no published secondary sources available sitting may be in another corner of the world. The person this article mentions is a very famous and is dear to the people of Dakshina Kannada and Karnataka, India. Lot of coverages has been given in many news and publishing about his work and contribution. He is a regular speaker at the Information Security Education and Awareness (ISEA) portal of the Government of India and the only speaker garnering a participation of thousands of netizens. His verified Facebook page is Dr. Ananth Prabhu Gurpur. 30 unsung heroes of India https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/anniversary-issue/story/20191230-cyber-sentry-1629809-2019-12-23 — Yato15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment None of the sources given here are:
Self Published
written by someone Closely affiliated with subject
Primary

And, people who are writing them seem to have no vested interest (Financial or legal leverage). Hence, they are independent by definition. The sources talk about different events. For example, TOI article talks about Cybersafe Girl, The Hindu article talks about the grant, Deccan herrald talks about SOS Blood service, India Today talks about training on cyber security. Hence, they are intellectually independent of each other. Good to note that two TOI articles are written by two different journalists which implies there is no affiliation. Sources seem to be written by in-house team which has no vested interest with the subject or his work and hence independent of subject. The next point in WP:BASIC right below is if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Almost all sources talk about him and his work in 2 paragraphs even if we subtract what the subject is saying in double quotes which is enough for WP:BASIC. Thanks! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any resources that justify the notability of an author. Can you please provide WP:THREE. GermanKity (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More news that came in diffrnt print newspapers below:
This Teacher takes online classes and distributes mask and tea to the needy, The Times Group
Are you cybersafe, girl? November 11, 2019, The Hindu
ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ಅಕಾಡೆಮಿ ಆಯೋಜಿಸಿದ್ದ ಚಿತ್ರದುರ್ಗದಲ್ಲಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ, ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಮತ್ತು ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಅಭಿಯೋಜಕರಿಗೆ ಸೈಬರ್ ಭದ್ರತಾ ತರಬೇತಿ
Infotoon spread a good word on cyber safe girls, The Times Group
ಕೋವಿಡ್ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಆತ್ಮವಿಶ್ವಾಸದಿಂದ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗಳನ್ನು ಹೇಗೆ ಎದುರಿಸುವುದು
Professor with a remarkable vision, Mangalore today, October 2018
Need Blood? Help is an SMS Away, Times City
ಪ್ರಜವಾಣಿ ಆಯೋಜಿಸಿರುವ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರ ಸೈಬರ್ ಅಪರಾಧ ಮತ್ತು ಭದ್ರತಾ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಹರಿಸಲು ಲೈವ್ ಫೋನ್-ಇನ್ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ
Waseem0088 (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This Keep Vote by the creator. GermanKity (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Self published resources are not allowed need more references with WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. GermanKity (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY because the article has been revised and had independent and reliable sources added, and per WP:BASIC, for his notability as a cybersecurity expert, and per WP:CREATIVE for at least one of his cybersecurity projects. To support WP:BASIC, there is a 2018 Mangalore Today interview that begins with a WP:SECONDARY description that includes "polymath" and "cybersecurity expert," as well as an overview of his educational and career background. There is also a 2019 India Today profile that also describes him as a cybersecurity expert and includes career information. He also appears in a variety of 2020 articles that describe and quote him as a cybersecurity expert, including the Deccan Herald and The Times of India 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Per WP:CREATIVE, he created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work, the Cyber Safe Girl e-book, which has been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles, e.g. in The Hindu and The New Indian Express and has evolved into a larger website and campaign reported by The Times of India, and a related initiative reported by The Deccan Herald. There is additional coverage of his other projects, some of his other books and academic research in the article, but the sources listed in this comment seem sufficient to at least support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One user contacted me for removing the deletion tag from this article. Please check on my talk page. It seems like it is a case of COI. I can see on the history of the page where Spiderone and discospinster tried to move into draft and PROD.GermanKity (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-Please don't delete this page Admins of Wikepedia. -Dr.Ananth Prabhu Gurupur is Highly Respected in India and is well known for his achievements in cyberfeild "All the facts posted on this page is true and there is much more about this polymath. Apart from the field of Cyber security, he has many books authored and international journals written to his credit". -If you say the reason for deletion is lack of resources to prove eligibility for Wikepedia please check his "Verified Facebook Account" https://m.facebook.com/educatorananth/ which definitely is more than enough proof to say he is a notable person ,Hope Wikepedia takes Facebook account for considering and prevent any vandelism . -Shravankumaruk (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2021 (IST) — Shravankumaruk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

* Fairly possible that this might be true. The way creator had written this page with so much unsourced information, it can be possible. Have added a COI tag. They had also removed past declines I remember. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Changed because there is truly not enough evidence. There seems to be no connection with the creator and this new user who has arrived dramatically. The BLPPROD is when there are no sources. It doesn't concern with notability (since notability can be evaluated only after sources are provided) Once it was moved to draft, the creator moved it back to main space but then again had put it back to draft space themselves. They tried to improve the page and submit but probably didn't have enough experience to do so. I forgot to assume good faith here and hasted my opinion. Also, the message on nominator's talk page Can you please remove Deletion request and contact me through mail for confirmation or verification Ananth prabhu sir is sad to see his own page go far from him is random. It almost seems like someone is trying to orchestrate a COI scene out of revenge/hatred to cause damage. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Beccaynr, Apart from all the valid sources shared above, sharing 2 more sources [[11], [12] also [13] where Chief Minster of UP released his book in which much is written about him but this 3rd source can't be considered due to missing date in the paper cutting. Its passing WP:GNG. New User Shravankumaruk understands where the deletion discussion is going, who nominated, knows how to ask help from Germankity, edit codes, act like innocent by highlighting 'twice' for Facebook page. Calling 'Sir' Ananth Prabhu(Junior & Senior), as per my understanding people might not show grief with junior until they have some emotional connection. 2 Conclusions, Shravankumaruk is a sock of someone and he actually knows Ananth personally because he shared his Facebook Url, an extra step. Sonofstar (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning towards keep. But, happy to welcome other experienced editors thoughts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:47, 3 June 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. Sorry folks, I'm not convinced to delete or keep with this one based on the arguments presented. See what you can do with the article, if anything, and it's always welcome to be renominated for deletion. Thanks for assuming good faith with my decision. Missvain (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zdzisław Józef Porosiński

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

Was accepted through the AfC process, but can't find enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and am not seeing how he passes WP:NPROF. Onel5969 TT me 14:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kamińska, Agnieszka, and Krzysztof J. Szajowski. "Zdzisław Józef Porosiński: a memoir." Mathematica Applicanda 45.2 (2017).
Best --hroest 18:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Multiple reliable sources (although obituaries, but written by scholars): in addition to the one mentioned above, there is [14]. Yes, same authors, but different journal and the article is somewhat rewritten. So it's kind of borderline whether he meets GNG requirement for multiple reliable sources. While he does not clearly meet NPROF (according to GScholar, his most cited paper, The full-information best choice problem with a random number of observations from 1987, has 52 cites, second, co-authored with A. Kamińska, On robust Bayesian estimation under some asymmetric and bounded loss function, from 2009, 22, then everything else is in single digits), he does meet the Polish Wikipedia's one (I just mention it since the article is sure to remain on pl wiki) as pl wiki criteria see habilitation as sufficient for notability (this was discussed for NPROF but did not gain sufficient support for becoming our policy). Overall I think that we are way too notable for sportspeople, and not enough for academics, so given this is a borderline case I argue for keeping. It's ridiculous we would keep a biography of some soccer player who just played in one bigger match, fails GNG but meets NSPORT, yet delete a biography of a scholar who had two academic obituaries published about him. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Being bold with a third round - any other experienced editors able to take a look? I'm leaning on a weak keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:43, 3 June 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) Ambrosiawater (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbor Hill, Iowa

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

All evidence is that this was a post office and nothing more, with the very slight exception of a "road" of the same name which leads to a couple of stray houses; it really appears to be a glorified driveway. Other than that I get references to prize pigs and the like, and a variety of lists of placenames. Not a notable place, and the article already says pretty much anything that can be said, true or false. Mangoe (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lippincott's Gazetteer says that it's a post office. There's passing mention of one person living there in Kilburn's 1842 History of Adair County, Iowa, cited in the article at hand, and no other significant history that I can find. Hair's 1865 Iowa State Gazetteer tells us that Harrison Township, Adair County, Iowa was the actual place that the post office was in. I agree. This is another false "unincorporated community" article and the true subject is not notable. Uncle G (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Newspapers.com brings up this, which refers to it as a spot on the map that turned out to just be a narrow spot on the road with nothing there. Also found a passing mention to J. F. Pease's store burning down, a passing reference to an Arbor Hill in a different county (Adams Co.), and some stuff about an amateur baseball team named Arbor Hill. Not finding any indication that this is notable. Hog Farm Talk 22:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - [15] [16] [17] - It's definitely a place that exists as it's currently the location of a debated wind farm and controversial solar project. There's also plenty of mentions in different farming directories from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. For instance in 1904 someone there had a registered Chester White swine. [18], and in 1887 some farmers got a patent for an upgrade to a threshing machine as well[19]. Big time doings for a small farming community. The reason I'm not voting is I don't know if this is enough for notability of the location. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two of those are a modern thing that may not have any relationship to this purported "unincorporated community", and a wind farm is not a community. Another one of those is solely someone's postal address, which aligns with this being a post office. The reason that I and others are scouring history books, gazetteers, government reports, railway commission rulings, history books of resorts and springs, and suchlike on all these articles is to find something that actually documents the place. It's not enough to phrase match someone's postal address. We need to be able to actually write an article in accordance with content policy. First of all, we need to even identify what it is. Can you cite a source specifically identifying this as a village, a water pump, a crossroads, a hill, a post office, a railway station, a vineyard, a farm, a mine, someone's house, or any of the other things that "unincorporated community" has turned out to be? Because I can point to page 88 of Hair's gazetteer, aforecited, which says outright "ARBOR HILL is a post office in Harrison Township", as well as to Lippincott's and Kilburn's History which agree. It is a post office. Where's the in-depth documented history and geography et al. of this post office?

      "unincorporated community" means and identifies nothing, and is a huge red flag, thanks to the mass GNIS import problem. The pig farmers most likely lived in Harrison Township.

      Uncle G (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm the original author of the article. I was able to find plenty of references for this community, and the idea that it was "only a post office" is not supported by any of these sources. References indicate there were more than 20 businesses in Arbor Hill, and although there isn't much there now (according to the above linked newspaper article), the community was noted in its time (at least between the 1800s and 1933-ish). The USGS still recognizes the community, and it appears on USGS quad maps (one official USGS quad is named after Arbor Hill).
Notability is not temporary. I was able to add considerable sourced content to the article, and the Iowa Ghost Towns link states a resident in Arbor Hill has between 200-300 historic photos of the community, some of which could eventually be added to the article (I'd love to do it, and will reach out). I was similarly able to fill out single-digit unincorporated communities previously, here and here. Arbor Hill seems notable to me. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 06:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:40, 3 June 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. Not convinced this one meets our WP:GNG per the arguments presented by User:SportingFlyer. Missvain (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wausau Curling Club

[edit]
Wausau Curling 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)

Local sports club, sourced only to the local paper and the club's own website, promotional concerns, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It will be hosting the US National Championships in a week or so. I think that makes it notable.-- Earl Andrew - talk 01:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A basic WP:BEFORE finds substantive coverage on WSAW-TV [20], the Wasau Daily Herald [21], the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [22], WAOW-TV [23], Wisconsin Public Radio [24], etc., etc., etc. Chetsford (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "... passing mentions" - No, that's incorrect. For instance, WSAW-TV's story is titled "Take a look at the Wausau Curling Club" and mentions it directly or indirectly 7 times in a 3-minute television segment dedicated to the Wasau Curling Club while the Daily Herald's article is titled "Wausau Curling Club slides into the 2014-15 season" and mentions it directly or indirectly six times in an 11 paragraph article specifically about the Wasau Curling Club. The other references are similar. It is, therefore, an objectively false statement that "The only one which looks like it might pass WP:NCORP requirements from that list is the NPR one. The rest are passing mentions." Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WSAW and WAOW are regional media as described by AUD; both cover the Wasau-Rhinelander DMA which includes 24 cities with a total 12+ population of ~400K, or larger than New Orleans. Wisconsin Public Radio is also regional media, straddling three market areas with 12 affiliate stations. So are the others, etc. Per AUD "one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary". The one non-local source requirement is met and exceeded. Chetsford (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Calling those sources regional is very generous. SportingFlyer T·C 14:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not. Regional media is media that covers more than one locality but has less than national reach. Wisconsin Public Radio covers the 190 cities of Wisconsin. This is even envisaged in AUD which refers to "statewide" media. WSAW-TV provides news coverage spanning 11 separate counties [25]. It is objectively not local. If it were local it would cover one county. Chetsford (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree - Wausau's not a very large place, and calling something "regional" on the grounds that it might be distributed to some very low-population counties can't save the article. Furthermore I'm not sure the articles you cite are completely independent - they include text like To curl, all you need is clean shoes, warm clothes and a positive attitude to give it a try! The club will provide the rest of the basic equipment (the local news source) and To reserve a spot or for more information on either event, visit the Wausau Curling Club's Facebook page, log on to [website]... They're not doing independent reporting on the club, but rather are doing general local interest stories about a local organisation. SportingFlyer T·C 18:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree - Wausau's not a very large place, and calling something "regional" on the grounds that it might be distributed to some very low-population counties can't save the article. Once again, Wisconsin Public Radio is a network of 34 radio stations providing coverage to an area of 5,893,718 people (the state of Wisconsin), greater than the population of the nation of Finland. Even if you maintain that we should adopt your personal and unconventional definition of regional media that precludes WSAW-TV and WAOW-TV, this still meets the requirement of WP:AUD for "one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" in addition to local RS. Chetsford (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. Do not delete the page. 173.47.141.230 (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the substantive coverage listed by Chetsford and expect more coverage in the next couple of weeks while they host significant national championships. A202985 (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:40, 3 June 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. Missvain (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arnergy

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

They have move warred over this, so AFD is the best option. This is really good covert upe so you have to closely to nab it. The organization fails WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The ref bombing is intentionally put there to inundate an editor not trained to see it, you could do a private google search before voting, but having done mine diligently, the sources observed are predominantly mere mentions, press releases, pr sponsored posts, self published posts and sources which are yet to develop a reputation for fact checking or without editorial oversight. The article has 0 WP:ORGDEPTH. This article is created perfectly by a 4 day old editor, Invariably this article is a very good WP:ADMASQ. This is undisclosed paid editing at its best. Celestina007 (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — All the sources do not directly reference Arnergy neither do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV, required by WP:GNG, coupled with the fact that the third source you linked above is to YouTube, coupled with the fact that you are an WP:SPA for the organization, coupled with the fact that within four days you know wikimarkup quite well, coupled with the fact that this is undisclosed paid editing, coupled with the fact that rather than submit the article via AFC, you move-warred, there’s no universe where this sort of COI/UPE article would be retained on mainspace. We agree that we were born at night but certainly it wasn’t last night. Celestina007 (talk)
  • Delete. Per nom, nice work. User introduced minor changes to Oando to get autoconfirmed, then immediately plonked an article about their favorite company. User is immediately familiar with wiki lingo such as "admin" or "passes WP:GNG". Sure sure sure. The sources brought up in the comment above are mostly interviews and pitches with little to no independent journalistic work, and thus fail WP:SIRS. JBchrch talk 22:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent sources. Sonofstar (talk) 13:54, 6 June 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. Fails WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Wolfe

[edit]
Scott Wolfe (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. SportingFlyer T·C 21:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Customer (Dis)Service

[edit]
Customer (Dis)Service (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, only "significant" coverage is coming from blogs and primary sources, no indication of notability, per WP:GNG and WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 20:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet notablity requirments, WP:NFILM, can't find any reliable sources, articles or reviews about this film. Mousymouse (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given the buried lede that this was "originally shot for CBC Television", I was able to find verification in ProQuest that it aired on Doc Zone in 2011 (meaning, in turn, that the claim that it was an American documentary film which premiered on CNBC in 2012 was just plain incorrect on all three counts) — but what I got is five different reprints of a single wire service article, which means I can add one usable source rather than five. But individual episodes of television documentary series are not "inherently" notable enough for standalone articles as separate topics from the overall series, this one doesn't have the Canadian Screen Award or Emmy nominations that would be needed to clinch it as automatically more notable than other episodes, its own self-published press releases are not notability-supporting sourcing at all, and one hit of real newspaper coverage isn't enough to turn the tide. If I were able to build out a comprehensive episode list for Doc Zone the way I've been able to for its more contemporary successor series CBC Docs POV, then I'd suggest redirecting it there — but I can't (even on CBC Gem, all that's left of Doc Zone is a small handful of episodes from the final season, with nothing before that available at all), and I don't see a pressing need for this one to be singled out in that article for special mention in the absence of a comprehensive episode list, and without such a mention I can't justify a redirect either. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 8 June 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. Missvain (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Hukku

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Rajesh Hukku (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 has only one inline cite (well, really an external link titled "ref"); of the nine references listed, only two seem to be independent reliable sources: BusinessWeek (dead but archived here and Time (dead but archived here). Everything else is the sorts of awards that thousands of corporate execs win every year. Independent Googling doesn't establish anything beyond a few more brief write-ups. The article has a pretty solidly promotional tone, largely built around those awards and other touted accomplishments, and I just don't see the WP:SIGCOV we'd need in order to create a better article. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 20:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 20:37, 3 June 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. I am not convinced either way. If people want to split or rename or whatever, feel free to please discuss that on the talk page.

If that doesn't work out, you're welcome to renominate it for deletion again if absolutely necessary. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities with advanced degrees

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

There's no formal definition of 'celebrity' here (until I removed it a little while back, the list included Theodore Kaczynski), and I don't think it's really possible to make one that wouldn't either be ridiculously inclusive or ridiculously exclusive. "Advanced degree" is a bit vague as well.

We could make this "list of professional actors, athletes, and musicians who have doctorates, medical degrees, or law degrees", true, but that seems... awkward. DS (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Define 'celebrity', then. DS (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oxford English Dictionary definition (indirectly, as I don't have access to the OED):[26] "[a] well-known or famous person ... (now chiefly) spec. a person, esp. in entertainment or sport, who attracts interest from the general public and attention from the mass media." Entertainment or sport covers everyone on the current list except Prada (and Kaczynski). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still too vague. Why is Arthur Conan Doyle on there? or Michael Crichton? What counts as "interest", what's "general public", what's "entertainment"? Geoffrey A. Landis has won multiple awards for his fiction writing and has a Ph.D in solid-state physics. Does Isaac Asimov (Ph.D. in biochemistry) count as a celebrity? Why or why not? What about Vernor Vinge (Ph.D. in computer science)? All three have certainly been celebrated. DS (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Catherine Asaro? Diana Gabaldon? N. K. Jemisin? Tade Thompson? Nnedi Okorafor? DS (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions about whether some entries qualify do not have much bearing on the deletion issue. There are rock-solid celebrities who are noted for their academic accomplishments, e.g. Mayim Bialik. P.S. It is customary to notify the article creator when you initiate an Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What if I disagree that Bialik is a celebrity? You haven't defined your terms. You're pointing to a dictionary entry that's full of vague terms that One Is Expected To Understand but doesn't actually say anything objective. What counts as "entertainment"? Tell me. What counts as "interest"? What counts as "the general public"? My argument is that this list is fatally flawed because there are no objective criteria for whether any given degree-holder should be included. How many people are required to be "general public"? How entertaining must "entertainment" be, and to how many people? Stephen Jay Gould was a voice actor on an episode of The Simpsons - playing a Simpsonized version of himself. Does that count as him being an entertainer? DS (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You (and I) don't get to decide who's a celebrity. Reliable sources do that: "During Thursday, Sept. 24's episode of Celebrity Game Face, executive producer and host Kevin Hart guided three teams of celebrity pairs—including Rob Riggle and Darren Leader, Mayim Bialik and Jonathan Cohen ..." Also, I'm surprised you consider an OED entry to be full of vague terms. You don't know what "entertainment" is? Seriously? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've listed people who perform on television,and athletes, and a fashion designer. None of that is entertaining. You had one author. DS (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sure there are listicles of a selection of examples, but that does not equate to an encyclopedia article. For some reason Vogue thinks I should be surprised America Ferrara has a bachelor of international studies and a Kardashian has a bachelor's degree in theatre arts – I'm not, and this is not the scope of this article either, since only one of those links is about postgraduate degrees. "Celebrity" is far too vague for this to have good inclusion criteria. If MD Arthur Conan Doyle is a celebrity, how about all the Physicians in the United States Congress? If this is supposed to exclude "those who are primarily known for their degree-related accomplishments", then why have Rachel Maddow? A PhD in political science certainly prepared her for her current role! Sure, people get a degree and later change their career, or become famous at sports or acting or whatever else have you and then decide they want to go back to school, but that's something for their respective articles, not something for us to synthesize as being connected to each other. Reywas92Talk 06:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, but they're considered to have advanced degrees. Physicians who are notable for reasons other than being physicians. Regardless of EOnline calling Bialik a celebrity, that doesn't mean she is - it only means she's been referred to as, and calling this article "List of people who have been referred to as celebrities and who also have advanced degrees" would be unwieldy. Maddow is known for being a political analyst on television. You still haven't answered my questions about what counts as entertainment. Please answer them. What counts as "entertainment"? What counts as "interest"? What counts as "the general public"? How many people are required to be "general public"? How entertaining must "entertainment" be, and to how many people? You appear to believe that these questions have simple and obvious answers, so please provide them. DS (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your disregard for sources is very puzzling. What would satisfy you? A Supreme Court decision? A burning bush? Also, non-celebrities with advanced degrees are totally irrelevant. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have not defined "celebrity" (and thus "non-celebrity"). Therefore it is impossible to tell what is relevant. DS (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The OED has, and I've explained how celebrityness can be confirmed. Would you like that engraved on a stone tablet, delivered by cherubim? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also note that the phrase "primarily known for their degree-related accomplishments" is also vague. Isaac Asimov,[27][28] was known for his fiction and for his general non-fiction, not for his biochemistry. Buzz Aldrin, who is considered enough of a celebrity that he appeared on Dancing with the Stars, has a doctorate in astronautics but that's not what he's known for. The mention of David Duchovny, who didn't actually finish his doctorate, opens the way to include Doctor Seuss, who didn't actually finish his doctorate in English literature: he was famous for achievements not pertaining to his degree, because he didn't have a degree. DS (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your insistence that Maddow doesn't qualify because (I presume) she comments on politics is at odds with your choice of Aldrin. Duchovny is not on the list, but in the See also section, which is totally appropriate. If you want to add Dr. Seuss there, that's fine too. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Consistency. You still haven't provided a functional definition of 'celebrity'. Is it the same as 'fame'? Do you have to be able to cite sources in which the person in question is referred to as a celebrity? The dictionary you quoted earlier said "mass media" - what counts as "mass media"? What about if the person is in a Hall of Fame? Which ones? Do elected officials count? Do Olympic medalists? Fatally flawed. DS (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Che Guevara, per Reason, is a celebrity, and he had a medical degree. I can find descriptions of Haing Ngor as having "celebrity status" but not of him as being a celebrity. DS (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Harper's Bazaar has categorized articles about Jill Biden as "celebrity news", as has USA Today. DS (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vaguely defined list. As the nom keeps pointing out, none of the Keep !votes address the inclusion criteria. All the refs noted in the first Keep !vote are "top 10" clickbait sources often shunned at fictional element AfD's, so I'm not confident that Clarityfiend has proved LISTN. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm leaning delete. The issue here is the inclusion criteria, arguments about WP:Notability are missing the point. If we are to keep this, it first needs to be demonstrated that we can have WP:LISTCRITERIA that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources to allow us to make a proper list article. TompaDompa (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I voted keep earlier, but I came about this AfD not by trawling through the log, but by actually searching out this article as a reader and seeing the AfD banner. I again point to WP:LISTPURP which reads "If users have some general idea of what they are looking for but do not know the specific terminology, they could browse the lists of basic topics and more comprehensive lists of topics, which in turn lead to most if not all of Wikipedia's lists, which in turn lead to related articles." This is a list that unambiguously helps the reader find what he is looking for - famous people with advanced degrees - and it is the average reader who will be harmed by its deletion. Our readers come first. I really don't see any strong reasons for deletion cited above. Arguments citing notability guidelines really don't speak to navigational lists (apart from all entries having bluelinks), and the debate on inclusion criteria should have gone to the talk page first as it's a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem.
TL;DR - This as a navigational list that should be kept per WP:LISTPURP, and citing inclusion criteria is not sufficient for deletion in this case. schetm (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a possible closing admin, I'm leaning delete due to the "what is a celebrity" situation. But, willing to hear more thoughts or ideas (and WP:Alternatives to deletion if any).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The nom, DragonflySixtyseven, nails the list criteria - List of actors, athletes, and musicians with advanced degrees. I agree - that makes a terrible title, but it doesn't need to be. The title doth not the inclusion criterion make. It should, however, be in the lede, and I have placed it there. I think celebrity is fine in the title, but a potential title could be List of entertainers with advanced degrees. That is, perhaps, narrower than "celebrity" schetm (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A potential inclusion criteria: This list includes actors, athletes, artists, and musicians with doctorates (MDs, EdDs, and PhDs) outside their field of fame. This could, of course, be expanded to a list of people with advanced degrees outside their field of fame, which then could include Guevara and Kaczynski. The title would need to be workshopped a bit more if it's expanded in that way. schetm (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; while 'advanced degree' may be just about possible to define (even though it hasn't been), 'celebrity' is hopelessly vague, not to mention inherently subjective: for example, I've not heard of any of the football players on the list — does that mean they're not celebrities, or that they are, but only to those who follow American football (a small minority of the World's population, surely)? I kind of understand what this article is trying to do, but I think that is more suited for chumbox clickbait (along the lines of "see what these famous actors look like today!") than an encyclopaedia article. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summation. I've provided about half a dozen lists of celebrities connected to higher academic achievement/degrees, all unambiguously specified as such in the list/article titles, so brainy celebrities are discussed as a group, satisfying NLIST. Celebrityness (celebrityhood?) is determined by the mass media, and the current examples in the list are all sourced by them (with the odd exception of Robert Vaughan). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And where do you list Che Guevara, for whom I have found reliable sources that call him a celebrity? Jill Biden? Isaac Asimov? How do you determine when someone's degree is "unrelated" to their "field of fame"? The only real alternative to deletion is to fragment this into multiple sub-articles - 'actors who have', 'musicians who have', 'athletes who have'. DS (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, produce these reliable sources for Che. Where would I put him if he qualified? After Doyle and before Jeong, duh. Also, "outside their field of fame" is not mine. Somebody else added it. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonflySixtyseven: @Reywas92: @LaundryPizza03: @Schetm: @TompaDompa: @Johnpacklambert: @DoubleGrazing: Eureka! I believe you've hit upon the solution. Splitting the list into (1) artists and entertainers and (2) athletes would make the whole celebrity problem go away. (Celebrity states most are in those two categories.) I have changed my lvote accordingly. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because "mass media" isn't defined, this is a perfectly valid source for Che Guevara being considered "the celebrity that celebrities adore". DS (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI nobody was pinged because those templates have to be saved at the same time you add a signature. This would be a slight improvement if several others vote to keep, but I still think it's trivia that belongs on their articles, not a unifying feature to be listed together. "Artists and entertainers" is still rather vague. Reywas92Talk 01:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom2601:246:CA01:31C0:9083:E369:A827:B9A3 (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Move to draft for the short term, and split into List of artists and entertainers with advanced degrees and List of professional athletes with advanced degrees per Clarityfiend. The subsets are more readily shown to be notable than the broader list. Note that I would also limit the "athletes" list to "professional athletes", to avoid including academics who have a sporting hobby. BD2412 T 18:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Changed from "move to draft and split" to "keep and split", as this has been worked on, and I think the split can be accomplished in mainspace at this point. BD2412 T 23:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Artists and entertainers" is still too vague. Actors? Musicians? Painters? Jugglers? DS (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question is whether readers will understand the meaning of the term, which I think they will, given common parlance. We could say "celebrity artists and entertainers" to make clear that we mean the famous ones. BD2412 T 19:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Actors", "musicians". Does "professional athletes" exclude everyone who went to the Olympics? DS (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would it? Magic Johnson and LeBron James have been to the Olympics, but are clearly professional athletes. I suppose a list limited to professional athletes would exclude someone whose only athletic activity was going to the Olympics. We have an article on Professional sports which delineates the distinction. BD2412 T 05:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's not clear to me that this list does meet WP:LISTPURP for navigation. With a list like List of mathematical symbols by subject, it's easy to imagine a reader who doesn't know how to find an article on the symbol they've stumbled upon any other way. This list seems to me to be a probable endpoint in itself, & to serve a function similar to the listicles it draws from, which is non-encyclopædic (WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE; I think this comes close to being 'non-encyclopedic cross-categorization', tho obviously we're dealing with a list rather than a category). Pathawi (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this passes WP:NLIST, and the objections brought up so far ("celebrity" is a vague term) don't seem to necessitate deletion. Perhaps it could be moved to a more appropriate title; perhaps we could have a list of musicians with advanced degrees, or movie stars, or YouTubers, or whatever. Perhaps we could attempt to reach consensus on a set of criteria for inclusion. Who knows? It's a problem that has many possible solutions, and deleting the article is a pretty unimaginative one. It's a nice list to have around, even if it might seem frivolous or silly. Readers are who matter, and besides, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a project to be the most serious website on the Internet (we have example.com, navy.mil, and the login portal for your local bank to serve that purpose). jp×g 06:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good for keeping track. Could be split, renamed, something along those lines. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:47, 4 June 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. Snow close as an obvious hoax. – Joe (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Venuses from Kangari Hills

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

Very likely hoax. No RSes discuss these, in the scholarly literature or otherwise. This would be a revolutionary archaeological finding -- a sophisticated human figurine tens of thousands of years older than any prior recorded -- and be covered in reams of journal articles; there are no results on Google Scholar, JSTOR, ProQuest, etc. Categorized on Commons as a forgery. Vaticidalprophet 20:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet 20:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet 20:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. As stated above, a find such as this would have enormous anthropological significance, and would have far better sourcing than the supposed offline-only newspapers given in the article. As it is, I likewise can find nothing at all. firefly ( t · c ) 20:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: This is an obvious fraud. A real revolutionary discovery would have received a massive amount of scholarly attention. This hoax has received no attention whatsoever. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reverse image search gave me some pictures of the newspapers. [29] There's nothing else I could find, which probably signals a hoax. — Goszei (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Addendum: Delete as a hoax. — Goszei (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The newspapers themselves being real is worth noting, but yeah, they'd have huge, widespread scholarly coverage as a total rewrite of our understanding of the prehistory of symbolic sculpture if they existed. The main source for that linked piece seems to be...Wikipedia. Also, according to talk page comments, the animal they're supposedly made of the ivory of didn't live in the area at the time. Vaticidalprophet 22:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This is clearly fraudulent or it would be obviously a lot easier to find third party sourcing and supporting media coverages. I say get rid of it.--Canyouhearmenow 22:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete , I seem to have made an error when I accepted it a year ago. I can't immediately account for the error DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax, per all above. Too clever by half – all the elaborate claims raise obvious alarm bells. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cobbler, Missouri

[edit]
Cobbler, 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)

Another mass-created falsehood. Ramsay describes this as a rail switch in a potato-farming area, and the topos show a rail point with basically nothing there before the area is covered over by a wastewater treatment plant. Searching determines that the proper name of this place is actually Cobbler's Switch and that this was a railroad shipping point for potatoes, but the coverage I found is pretty trivial and not enough to build a notable stub out of this. Rail switches do not get the WP:GEOLAND pass and while some meet GNG, this one does not. Hog Farm Talk 19:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 19:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 19:31, 3 June 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 International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Any salvageable content can be merged from the history, with attribution. – bradv🍁 15:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia–United States relations

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

Abkhazia–United States relations

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abkhazia–United States relations. This is a second nomination , but the spelling and punctuation of the title is apparently different than in 2014 .

The United States has never recognized either Abhkazia or South Ossetia, and articles on relations between the United States and both Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been deleted as non-encyclopedic, and redirected to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This article was recently accepted from draft, apparently by good-faith mistake by a reviewer. Nothing has changed with regard to non-relations between the United States and Abkhazia since 2014. The United States still considers both Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be de jure parts of Georgia that were invaded by Russia in 2008, and that are essentially Russian puppet states. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You're just arguing it because you don't like it. There is an encyclopedic value to this. You're arguing that the editor who accepted this did it by mistake. What basis do you have for that claim? It should be noted that the nominator is doing this because he rejected my draft on South Ossetia relations with the U.S. which he said lacked notability and I've been appealing my South Ossetia to be accepted. Robert McClenon, I don't think you are assuming good faith. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I know that User:WikiCleanerMan is acting in good faith. They simply disagree with me, and with the past consensus of the Wikipedia community in 2014, as to the notability of articles on relations between the United States and two regions which the United States does not consider to be countries (and most of the world does not consider to be countries). I agree with WCM that we should be consistent about the treatment of these two places, that are non-recognized in the same way. Either the 2020 deletion on South Ossetia should be overturned, which is what WCM wants, or this article should be deleted. If this article is kept after adequate discussion, I will be in favor of revisiting the South Ossetia article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we have both? The Abkhazia article has information that is separate from South Ossetia. Robert, I'm assuming you haven't read both articles. And again, I'm assuming, you haven't looked at the credible sources used in both articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also Robert, you are making yourself look bad when you comment on another user's talk page and say that I might be a part of the problem as you stated on Missvain's talk page. I also want to know if you ever did a thorough reading of my then draft of Somaliland–United States relations when accepting it aside from cutting down the redirect. And another reason you are probably nominating this article for deletion is that I mentioned it for the re-review on my South Ossetia article in which I mistook you for accepting it in the first place. You should take back this nomination because I don't think you are doing it with a neutral viewpoint. And just because nothing has changed doesn't mean nothing has happened. Take a look at the large paragraph in which American legislation has banned U.S. aid to Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Significant information that can't be denied by claiming it does not have encyclopedic value. And by redirecting this to the internation°al recognition article would be moot when clearly America's relationship with Abkhazia and South Ossetia isn't the same as the majority of countries which refused to recognize them or have not and will not recognize them. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that we should either have both articles or neither article, and that my preference is neither. I have not analyzed the sources. There is a myth in Wikipedia that acceptance or retention of an article is based entirely on the quality of the sources. Reliable sources are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the acceptance or retention of an article. If a large number of reliable sources write about a topic that is not notable in itself, the result is a well-sourced non-notable topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC) :::There have been two deletion discussions about US-South Ossetia relations, in 2014 and in 2020, both of which resulted in a conclusion to delete. Then you, User:WikiCleanerMan, tried to advise me to accept South Ossetia, ignoring a very recent deletion discussion as well as an older one, and I tried to advise you to go to Deletion Review, but you didn't go to Deletion Review, but just tried to say that I should ignore the AFD and accept your draft anyway. So here we are at an AFD on the US and Abkhazia. I am trying to be consistent, and I am trying to follow procedures. Now you need to make your case here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone to deletion review. I have been making my case and I never said you should ignore the AfD. That is a lie. And I have been making my case, but you're trying to sidestep the issue. The reason my version of the Ossetia article was considered for deletion was that I decided not to wait for the review process because I became impatient. And when I submitted it a second time for review and when you took a look at it recently you cited the AfD. An AfD that didn't even factor anything about the article. Aside from my keep vote, everyone else just said redirect. I'm sure they didn't even read the article. Both articles are well-sourced and I have laid out why both articles should exist. If you're not going to review the articles for their merits and just cite an AfD, then you shouldn't be accepting or declining draft submissions and certainly starting an AfD. "I am saying that we should either have both articles or neither article and that my preference is neither." And if your preference is neither then shouldn't be starting an AfD. You are wasting time your own time by starting this. I can only assume Bad faith from you unfortunately. "Well-sourced non-notable topic". Then I guess Armenia–Saudi Arabia relations and Armenia–Pakistan relations articles could count as such and yet there is notability just as these two articles I've created. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, how about merging the two articles since both articles contain a vast majority of the same information? Both pages can be titled say United States relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The fact that the two articles are mostly the same is a reason to delete or redirect. I note that WCM also said, above, that: 'The Abkhazia article has information that is separate from South Ossetia.' Yes, but not much, and not much substantive content. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Şefika Altındal

[edit]
Şefika Altındal (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 very similar case to Büşra Demirörs in that Altındal falls short on both the SNG (WP:NFOOTBALL) and WP:GNG. Current sources are only a database profile page and 3 articles that mention her in passing.

Searches, including a Turkish source search, failed to come up with anything better than a squad list in Haber7 and a passing match report mention in Fanatik. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that all they seem to do is just mention her (in passing). Appearing in a squad list for a youth match is not a true indicator of notability and GNG requires that the mention is more than just a trivial one. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berryman, Iron County, Missouri

[edit]
Berryman, Iron County, 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)

Another instance where GNIS is sourced to Ramsay, but Ramsay doesn't describe the location as a town. In this case, we have a rail switch for Mr. Berryman's sawmill and a short-lived 1880s post office. Newspapers.com results in Iron County bring up a passing mention to the Berryman School from 1904, as well as one passing mention to a Berryman baseball team. I found a few short mentions of a Berryman mill, but as that mill was suppose to be just outside of Arcadia, which is about 10 miles from this site, so there may have been two mills. Topos go back to 1926 and show a point on the railroad between Glover and Chloride with nothing there. Searching is a little difficult, because Berryman, Missouri is something different altogether. I'm not seeing any indications of this being a notable place. Hog Farm Talk 19:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 19:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 19:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Google Maps search between Glover and Chloride only shows the Glover Facility (whatever the hell that is) and what appear to be three or four buildings within a cleared plot of land on Swaringim Road (no Street View there, unfortunately) that might be proof of Berryman's existence (these sort of look like remnants of buildings), though these could just be something unrelated, since they're somewhat close to the Glover Facility and look rather small to be houses, a post office, a school, and/or a mill; plus, even if they were all houses, that's just three very small houses between two actual settlements, which doesn't sound like a "town" to me. It does sound like there used to be some form of settlement here, but it clearly doesn't exist anymore, and it isn't notable enough to have an article like ghost towns.
Also, unrelated question, Hog Farm: this is interesting stuff, how do you get this information? Like, the topography and all this stuff about what might've been there. Neat stuff, I wanna look at old maps and records. AdoTang (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AdoTang: - You can freely access old maps from the United States Geological Survey at [30]; you'll just need the coordinates of the site to plug in. Hog Farm Talk 02:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Maniyar

[edit]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 103.246.41.179 (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Danish Maniyar (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 four sources cited are all clearly marked as paid-for press releases. My searches are not coming back with any coverage that isn't a press release, therefore Maniyar fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Yash Raj Films. Missvain (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YRF Entertainment

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

Fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Will make sense to merge/redirect with Yash Raj Films as it is its subsidiary. Kolma8 (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I support its merger. It is non-notable and fails GNG. --Wildhorse3 (talk) 18:57, 3 June 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) — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 19:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhabha Hospital

[edit]
Bhabha Hospital (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:NBUILDING. This is a non-notable hospital. Kolma8 (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. --Wildhorse3 (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:48, 4 June 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. Missvain (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Score Group

[edit]
Score Group (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:NCORP - sources don't allow to establish independent notability - routine business news merely prove that the company exists. — kashmīrī TALK 18:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī TALK 18:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī TALK 18:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī TALK 18:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī TALK 18:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first link is a blatant advertisement, the next two are informercials – articles routinely created by the company's PR staff or PR agency. The 4th link is routine business news (takeover announcement). None offers WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:INDEPTH coverage. Phrases like "The biggest employer in Peterhead" may appear impressive, if not for the fact that Peterhead is a fishing town of barely 20,000 people. Delete. — kashmīrī TALK 09:18, 4 June 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) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German University Bangladesh

[edit]
German University Bangladesh (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:ORG Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grupo de Usuarios de Linux de Costa Rica

[edit]
Grupo de Usuarios de Linux de Costa Rica (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 skim indicates this group does not meet the bar for notability, i.e., I failed to find reliable sources discussing the group in depth. Izno (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:25, 3 June 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. The article passes WP:NCORP as highlighted in the discussion (non-admin closure) Run n Fly (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guest Keen Williams

[edit]
Guest Keen Williams (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:ORG. There are no sources present in the article. Didn't find anything on google books, news or regular search. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:44, 3 June 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 with consensus that the topic is to be merged, and the particulars of that merge will be carried out on the topic page. If that does not happen within a reasonable amount of time, the article can be renominated for AfD. – bradv🍁 15:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Integrity engineering

[edit]
Integrity engineering (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 appear to be a notable concept. Searching mostly finds websites of companies with similar names. The talk page note ("Contributions to this update are from the "Integrity Engineering" linkedin group, these suggestions and observations where thankfully recieved and have directly influenced this article.") makes me suspect this is largely WP:OR. Poorly sourced, tagged for two years with no improvement. It is conceivable an encyclopedic article could be written on this topic, but this isn't it, and would require at best WP:TNT. earwig shows extensive copying of text; it's hard to tell who copied from who, but given the general poor quality of this article, it doesn't seem worth the effort to figure out. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can see the direction of the wind here. I'd just note that a branch of engineering is not the same as a system intended to support that branch; and if one was designing an encyclopedia rationally, one would have an article on the branch, with perhaps a section or subsidiary article on systems to support it --- not the other way around. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldn't object to a merge in the other direction if that makes it more rational. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin question - Chiswick Chap and LizardJr8 - Sounds like a merge might work best here and as a closer, I'm curious, what article would you want me to suggest for the merge? Then Wikipedians can discuss it - decide on the merge on the proper talk pages. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep I agree that a merge is the best option, however I don’t think AFD is the proper forum to hash out the merge particulars. I suggest that this discussion be closed as a procedural keep, and a merge discussion following merge procedures be implemented. A merger notification should be placed on both articles so interested editors can participate. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, my view as stated above (if there isn't energy for a simple Keep) is for a reverse merge to here, i.e. Integrity engineering is the topic and Asset integrity management systems is a subsection of that. There is plainly scope for expansion and even subsidiary articles but we should start from there. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. LizardJr8 (talk) 13:48, 11 June 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 15:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Kang Qi Xu

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

Very incomplete and broken article. Think it needs to be moved to draft space to allow time to bake and establish more references. It currently isn't in any shape for mainspace. zchrykng (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. zchrykng (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. zchrykng (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:42, 3 June 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. Consensus is that the topic is substantially covered by multiple reliable sources. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ATS Infrastructure

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

There are two sources about routine announcements of funding but not enough to satisfy WP:NCORP. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:11, 3 June 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 Triples (web series). Eddie891 Talk Work 15:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balaji Jayaraman

[edit]
Balaji Jayaraman (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 misses significant coverage. Impeeriumalo (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Impeeriumalo (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 3 June 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) Run n Fly (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keyva King

[edit]
Keyva King (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 lacks news coverage Impeeriumalo (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Impeeriumalo (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:44, 3 June 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 14:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kerrie Burn

[edit]
Kerrie Burn (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 both WP:PROF and WP:GNG. The articles about Wikipedia editing do not give the necessary in-depth coverage. StAnselm (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. --Jeff Quinn (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burn is not an academic, so is not expected to meet the notability framework for academics. She is a librarian working in an academic space and getting increasing notice for her work on the Australian Women in Religion project, in particular. I have been busy and not had time to include some extra information to the page, however I anticipate that I will be able to do this in the next week. DrMushEa (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find a single reference (let alone reliable source) to the subject via a ProQuest database search of Australian and New Zealand newspapers (deeper and broader than google). I could not find a single reliable source via google. None of the page's current sources satisfy WP:RS. I consider myself an inclusion-ist but there is literally nothing to work with here. Fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As already said, doesn't meet WP:NPROF, and whilst is head of a few groups, they don't seem to be sufficiently notable on their own. Lack of significant and independant coverage to pass WP:GNG, but is perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I also want to say that it's a really bad look when a workgroup is formed to write Wikipedia articles and the participants write articles about each other. StAnselm (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's also a bad look StAnslem when someone publishes derisive commentary about the project on a facebook page, and then immediately tries to discredit the project by targetting a page for deletion. Cabrils, Eternity News, Australia is getting flagged as not reliable on a number of our pages. But since we are writing about Australian Women in Religion, this is likely to be a key source that proves notability within a specific population of Australia (that being Christian's). I noticed the arguement on sources page about CBN, and think that Eternity News should be treated in the same way. That is, it should not be taken as an authority on things unrelated to Christianity, but as a leading publication focussing on Christian's in Australia it demonstrates relevance.I have added sources this morning that demonstrate notability across a range of points: first non-US person on the Atla board, ARC recognition, more sources reporting on the AWR project and recognition by ALIA - the professional body for librarians. DrMushEa (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • DrMushEa it's never best practice to use deprecated sources and whilst Eternity News does not appear on this list, those discussions you refer to carry some weight. Honestly, I feel like you are pursuing your agenda to add pages that feature Australian women related to "theology and gender and sexuality, feminism, worship and community", and while that may be legitimate (arguably noble?), it is only so when those pages meet GNG. If the best sources of a page's citations are from Eternity News, in my view it really is self-evident that the page fails the relevant policies. The subject of a page needs to be notable and the current citations do not meet that bar in my view, given my research on the subject (as I described above via both Google and the substantial ProQuest database). And as I said, my personal approach is to include pages if at all possible, so I tried to find sources so that the page would satisfy GNG, but I could not. You might consider substantially editing the page so that it only includes content from the most reliable sources and see what the community feels about that (an approach I often employ to help save pages, for instance here. Cabrils (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • ThanksCarblis, I appreciate the feedback. And you're right, I am pursuing an agenda to challenge gender bias on Wikipedia which has been identified as a weakness of the site, and becuase I am interested in theology and religion those are the women that I am choosing to focus on. I am trying to make sure that any woman I choose meets the notablity guidlelines. I am aware that Christian news sources are niche publications, will have smaller readership and therefore are less likely to be picked up by pages like Google, or ProQuest. ProQuest seems to have an American bias that does not necessarily account for searches regarding Australian women who like Burn, have made significant contributions that may not be recognised outside their field. In terms of librarianship, this is another niche field that people working outside might not recognise what counts as notability for that occupation. This means that people working - like Burn - at the intersection of librarianship and theology, while contributing something unique to both fields doesn't fit well within the general notability requirements becuase it is a doubly marginal space. This is part of the systemic issue that leads to gender bias on wikipedia. (Librarian professional certification is not even included on the wiki page). So Burn has notability due to: a) her distinguished status within librarianship including her professional certification and her pioneering inclusion on the Atla Board, b) her work on the James Goold project as noted by the ARC, and c) on the Australian women in Religion project, principally in Christian news media. While none of these elements would be enough on their own, together they indicate that she is undertaking notable work in the niche field of theological librarianship.DrMushEa (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • DrMushEa Thank you for your considered and prompt reply. That's interesting that "gender bias on Wikipedia...has been identified as a weakness of the site"-- I find it curious that GNG could have a gender bias, and I wonder from where that "identified" "weakness" has come? Your argument is eloquent but I personally don't see how it reconciles with the reality of GNG. Having (a) "distinguished status", (b) being noted by the ARC, and (c) being in Christian news media, is still irrelevant unless the subject is notable ie meets the GNG. Wanting someone to exist on Wikipedia in order to achieve some alternative goal (alternative from notability as defined) (and as I said, even apparently noble goals), including for example "because it is true" (a reason I've seen made elsewhere by others) still may not meet GNG. If there are insufficient reliable sources, for whatever reason, be that gender-based or whatever, then that is an issue to take up with publishers. I do feel your frustration so again suggest you see if you could start the page afresh, limiting the content to what can be sourced from the best independent reliable sources you can find, and see what the consensus is. I do believe it will give the page the best chance of surviving this deletion challenge. All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Cabrils Just FYI from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia "In October 2018, when Donna Strickland won a Nobel Prize in Physics, numerous write-ups mentioned that she did not previously have a Wikipedia page. A draft had been submitted, but was rejected for not demonstrating "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject".[56][57][58]In July 2006, Stacy Schiff wrote a New Yorker essay about Wikipedia entitled "Know It All".[59] The Wikipedia article about her was created the very same day. According to Timothy Noah, she was apparently not notable by Wikipedia standards, despite the Guggenheim fellowship and Pulitzer prize many years previous.[60] Her essay and the article about her are now featured in the Wikiproject to counter systemic bias.[61]" I will have time later this week to rejig Burn's page. DrMushEa (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources from where the data is taken are not reliable and it does not follows all the norms also.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 04:25, 9 June 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 15:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dag Vågsås

[edit]
Dag Vågsås (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:NACTOR. I couldn't sufficient sources with a WP:BEFORE search and I can't see an obvious redirect. Suonii180 (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Field Tea Factory

[edit]
Orange Field Tea Factory (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 originally PRODed the article, then the creator left this message on my talk page. DePRODed and nominating for AfD to seek a wider consensus. I still think the Orange Field Tea Factory fails WP:COMPANY, not enough reliable sources to qualify for notability. Chanaka L (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 3 June 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 Gibraltar Women's Football League. ✗plicit 13:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar Wave F.C.

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

Amateur team which does not meet either WP:FOOTYN or WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 3 June 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 as WP:CSD#G7 by Fastily. ✗plicit 13:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red Eagle Politics

[edit]
Red Eagle Politics (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 Youtube channel, sources are a mixture of primary, passing mentions and unreliable blog type sites. No substantial RS coverage to speak of. Spicy (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, took the words out of my mouth. 107k subs and mentions in conservative blogs don't greenlight an article, and it looks like this was created for the sole reason that he's a YouTuber that didn't have an article beforehand, which I seriously doubt is grounds for an article. AdoTang (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No independent reliable sources to be found. Fails GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails GNG, can't see any reliable sources. TheChronium 14:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention point in favor. In response to GNG section "Independent of the subject". Some of the sources referenced were indeed independent of the subject. Some of the sources were published/printed by others with no familial relation to the subject. I think it should be a point worth mentioning and is valid to mention. I respectfully understand that most of the sources were biased and I freely own up to that. My talk pages in responding to other users show I was willing to look for secondary sources and just asked to keep it up for a bit while I was researching. I also included a link to his official site while is a valid exception in creating an article on a person to include their own website. I hope you will acknowledge (even if it is decided to be deleted) that it is a valid point. "Unreliable"? Some may have been but others are/were listed as no consensus. Would have been proper to list sources a "mixture" of unreliable and no consensus. If this leads to deletion, I will respectfully acquiesce, but part of consensus is give and take so there should at the very least be an acknowledgement in this discussion of the good points I raised or I will honestly think editors don't have the good faith principle at heart Updatewithfacts (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up mention One of the notes brought up on my article was "This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling." If the article is to be deleted due to improper sourcing on my part, that can be seen as understandable. I worked very hard on the article and invested several hours in working on the grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. I respectfully think that one (of the all complaints) is in error. Hopefully someone can reread the article and if they still feel it requires copy editing, at the very least make the distinction that it is mostly in terms of style or tone and that the spelling and grammar is (at the very least) average for the articles allowed. Updatewithfacts (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Articles generally don't get deleted for copy editing issues, as that can be fixed. The main reason articles get deleted is that they do not have enough reliable significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 19:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional mention per the rules of afd debate/consensus, I am freely allowed to join in and make my defense. Non-notable can be taken as a reasonable stance with a couple of major exceptions: without these 2, it would be fair to see that he is non notable. The 2 exceptions I bring up show a valid point that should be acknowledged if the consensus leads to deletion. He broke a hit story on a White House official creating an Only Fans page. Look up on the Internet and see if it can be found (all sources I have researched and found point to him as breaking the story). Breaking a story on a White House official lends credence to him being notable (point in favor). Second is due to many of his election predictions being true in federal elections and the breakdown of polls being off in the elections; few reliable sources can lay claim to both. That is a second point in my favor. This might sound contentious but I am making a defense of my article and whatever the future of it ends up being, these are valid points to consider and acknowledge. Updatewithfacts (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To evaluate the sources currently on the article (source numbers are for revision [44]):
    • Sources 2,3,4,5,12,13,14 are WP:ABOUTSELF
    • Sources 1,8 are from Steve Bannon (as an interview/podcast respectively). Not reliable for GNG purposes as it is self-published.
    • Sources 6,7 are passing mentions. Not significant coverage for GNG. (this is before looking at the reliability of the actual site)
    • Source 9,10,11 cite Red Eagle for a news piece, without significant coverage of the actual channel. Doesn't meet GNG requirements. Also to note 10,11 are the same article just on different sites. (this is before looking at the reliability of the actual site)
None of the current sources on the article meet the requirements of WP:GNG, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I was also not able to find any additional sources that could save the article. Jumpytoo Talk 19:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails GNG. As mentioned, many of the refs are to content generated by Red Eagle; last one is fund raising. David notMD (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above + I see nothing but PROMO. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valid point History of editor shows he (I) is/am new to editing and have repeatedly requested help and exercise of good faith. I have created a talk page for the article, issued invitations to editors, brought up valid points that (irrespective of article's future) have repeatedly not been addressed. If the article is to be taken down without due care to address valid points made, apologies where they should be addressed, this (not a threat) will be allowed to be screenshot and shown as proof that new editors are not given respect on Wikipedia. I came onto Wikipedia in good faith and the hope that proper respectful dialogue will ensue. Not pointing out where valid points are addressed, apologizing where necessary, and bordering on avoiding comments made by the user in question is a stark departure from Wikipedia guidelines on Good Faith, Consensus, and instruction to new editors. I am reaching out once again. If the consensus is to be that the article is to be taken down, kindly point out areas where I was correct, make those needed corrections (examples, "non notable", "unreliable", and "copy editing". There has been no apologies or corrections with regards to these claims or at the very least proper acknowledgments. Updatewithfacts (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valid point Valid point brought up that many are content generated by Red Eagle, which is partially allowed. If the article were to be allowed to exist, honest look would acknowledge that biography page created by Red Eagle on his website would be valid per standards on self-published work created by him. Lack of acknowledgment that 10z link was not made by Red Eagle, in collaboration with him, or direct fundraising of him. If valid points are to be brought up towards deletion, valid points to preservation or misconduct should be acknowledged. Updatewithfacts (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update/Concession Willing to take down article and not bring create a new one in the future on Wikipedia if acknowledgment to valid points are made and proper apologies issued. I want to learn and be a competent Wikipedia editor but there have been objectively honest mistreatment. Several editors have behaved in misconduct, refused to apologize or correct misinformation and I want to know that I can be in a constructive place to grow as an editor. Part of that involves more mature editors admitting when I have brought up valid points and apologizing. This is a promise that I will hold myself to: if proper acknowledgments and apologies are made, I will immediately take the page down and only post article for reliably source, notable subjects. Updatewithfacts (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipsally (talk • contribs) 09:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Updatewithfacts: See WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE if you think other users are mistreating you or committing misconduct; threatening us with walls of text brings you nowhere, and saying you'll only create proper articles on the sole condition that we apologize to you sounds like bad faith to me (you're basically saying you're going to deliberately be a disservice to Wikipedia if things don't go your way). See the other deletion messages here and the nomination for context as to why we want to delete this in the first place; Jumpytoo's is a good start. Also, from the article's talk page, "other Youtubers with less news coverage have gotten their own page created" is not valid grounds to create an article: other stuff exists, and no one said you couldn't send those other articles to AfD if you feel it's not fitting to have an article here. AdoTang (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AdoTang: It is completely appropriate to ask for apologies when rules of Wikipedia that editors (who have been here longer than me) have failed to uphold. I am seeing why I did not create the article as best as I could and have failed to bring it up to standards established, but it is equally true that editors acted inappropriately, did not apologize, no editors acknowledged valid points I brought up, and calling my valid points and defenses "threatening us with walls of text" is an additional point in my favor of editors showing bad faith. Instead of acknowledging that I am trying to bring up valid points in defense of my page, I am attacked and accused of threatening. I am once again asking for an apology. I was definitely going to delete the article and nib this problem in the bud but so far I have not seen a single editor on here apologize or acknowledge the valid points I have brought up. I have seen criticism (some of it very valid) but absolutely no acknowledgements or apologies. I would ask that you apologize for the attacking comment that I was "threatening us with walls of text". I made a defense of my article, as is allowed under the process of AfD, and have seen a serious lack of good faith in apologizing or acknowledgements. Updatewithfacts (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What "apologies" do you want? Not from me—I'll admit that maybe calling your text "threatening" was an overstatement, though it wasn't an attack—but from everyone else here, because you never elaborated on it. Are we supposed to apologize for saying "Delete"? Because if so, on behalf of the seven other editors here, I apologize for using AfD, or however else we wronged you. And again, if you want to do something about these "other Youtubers" you mentioned in this article's talk page, fire it at AfD, as Spicy did here. AdoTang (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion Perhaps the article could be deleted but his name included in a list of Youtubers and then have a article created if either his popularity grows or some of his coverage appears on reliable sources. That seems an acceptable compromise if there are not going to be any apologies or acknowledgments. Thoughts? Updatewithfacts (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I know, no such list exists. But if you find one for conservative YouTubers or political YouTubers or whatnot (though indiscriminate lists are discouraged), maybe his name would fit there. Maybe. AdoTang (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I appreciate user AdoTang admitting that "threatening" was an overstatement. That honestly helps me feel that some editors out here are genuinely interested in righting wrongs. My main issue has been repeatedly said in my addresses: I brought up valid points for my article and not a single acknowledgement was made of valid points I addressed (until just recently, to a very limited extent). I want to clarify that the editors here who feel my article should be deleted have every right to use AfD; my main problem was in how editors have gone about making their points. Some editors have mentioned lack of notability and I made a logical argument on how Red Eagle has appeared in non consensus sources, made a breaking story that was pointed out by other news organizations, and other aspects that lend credence to him having some measure of notability. I addressed that so that if someone made the argument that it was not good enough, they would acknowledge the good faith effort I made in presenting a measure of notability and respond with good faith in kind. My wall of text is to provide context. If any complaints are made later and my person not understanding comments made, a honest argument could be made that some comments are too small of text in addressing their points. Granted, a wall of text can be off-putting, but I did reach out to editors talk page, per the suggestion on conduct resolution, and have tried to understand what is going on. Additional reminder that I am a relatively new user and the conduct exhibited in parts of the discussion here has not reflected the 17 guidelines for not biting a new user. In good faith, I will take the advice raised by AdoTang to see if his name would maybe fit in a list of relevant Youtubers.
  • Comment: WP:TOOSOON clearly applies here. I fully expect that the Administrator's decision will be Delete. If at some future time this person has become written about by others because of a rise in prominence among political commentators, then a new attempt can be made to create an article. David notMD (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Update I have been in contact with Red Eagle Politics and he has requested that the page be taken down. I do not want to cause strive with the original subject of the article, so I am now okay with the page being deleted. I do hope there will be better conduct in the future by users/editors. If this is going to be the norm in response to new editors making attempts at making articles, this is clearly in violation of the rules and principles set by Wikipedia (especially in the areas good faith, consensus, and civility). Since there is a notification on the page about not deleting the page before the discussion is over, I will respect the wishes and not delete it myself but I am now okay with the deletion. I hope by giving permission and not fighting the deletion, it will be deleted soon. Updatewithfacts (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updatewithfacts As creator of the draft, you can add Db-author inside double curly brackets {{ }} to the top of the draft. This will trigger a fast deletion by an Administrator. Otherwise, you can do nothing, and at the conclusion of this AfD the draft will be deleted, given your most recent comment. David notMD (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David notMD: Thanks for letting me know about that option. I was looking around a few pages on Wikipedia on how to personally request a deletion for a page/article I created but had no luck. I just put that in. Updatewithfacts (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solar cycle (calendar)

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

Indiscriminate collection of topics that are more thoroughly and appropriately discussed in other articles. Request for sources has not been responded to since 2009. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article now really has only one good source, Christianson (2000). One of the remaining is by an astrological publisher, and the rest are at least 100 years old. Phillip (2012) is a republication of a 1921 work. Calendars may be slowly-changing topic, but more current sources are appropriate to determine what is notable enough for an article. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But I removed the table that seems redundant.--SilverMatsu (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish keep - IMO there are enough sources to demonstrate notability, and I've added Cheney's Handbook (edition of 2012), the standard British reference work on calendars and cycles. However, the article requires a lot of work. Ingratis (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is now sufficient reliable sources coverage for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This goes with the rules for determining the date of Easter, to be found in the front of Anglican prayer books. Cheney is certainly an appropriate source to cite. As a historian I use it regularly to convert dates in documents, such as Tuesday after Conversion of St Paul 5 Edward IV into a more recognisable date. There may however be scope for renaming, but I cannot think of a target. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HDClone

[edit]
HDClone (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 product of a non-notable company. Relies exclusively on primary sources for all the important content. Links to articles about tips and reviews on this software are noted in the reception rection, though nothing really significant. The "literature" is a list of all the books in which the subject is namedropped. Mottezen (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2016 South American U-17 Women's Championship squads

[edit]
2016 South American U-17 Women's Championship squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced squad list for a youth tournament, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 12:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Sallum Abdullah

[edit]
Abdullah Sallum Abdullah (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 Person Aliaboomar (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway Stakes (NYB)

[edit]
Broadway Stakes (NYB) (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 event that fails WP:GNG for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing. Under project guidelines the event should be at a minimum be graded. This event is a non-graded restricted race which lacks notability. (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:48, 3 June 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 15:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sentera

[edit]
Sentera (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 company is not notable. It's even not a stub. The reliable sources are absent. Don't meet WP:N and WP:ORG Sharky tale (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swarmcast

[edit]
Swarmcast (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 company is/was not notable. Reliable sources are absent. It also fails to meet WP:N and WP:ORG. Sharky tale (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Rosati

[edit]
Marcello Rosati (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 and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rosati fails WP:NFOOTY as the Vatican City isn't a FIFA member. He also fails GNG due to a lack of significant coverage about him. Dougal18 (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Lines (film)

[edit]
Dead Lines (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 television film, cannot find significant coverage of the film (no notable reviews, no coverage of production or impact), does not meet WP:NF or WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 08:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When a listing in the Radio Times is as good as you get, you are a dead line. Search threw up little beyond that, a couple other listings and, of course, IMDB. Which doth not pass WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could find no substantial coverage to show that this is notable. It looks to have been made and aired with almost no fanfare. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For a Canadian television film directed by a filmmaker as significant as Louis Bélanger, I'd have expected some actual Canadian media coverage — but I can find absolutely zilch, not even if I try "Louis Bélanger" + "Jeri Ryan" on the theory that it could have had a different title in Canada than elsewhere. It obviously existed, that checks out on Google, but just being able to verify a film's existence in primary source film directories isn't the notability test in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Aishaa14 (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Although the director is notable (as are some of the cast) there is just not enough coverage from reliable sources to justify this article. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comp-u-Learn Tech India

[edit]
Comp-u-Learn Tech India (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 formerly WP:LISTED company, but I don't see any independent sourcing other than orders, acquisitions, partnerships, etc which fall under routine coverage per NCORP. Revenue figures of ₹28.46 crore (US$3.4 million) in 2010 and ₹1.79 crore (US$210,000) in 2014-15 suggest that this is a run of the mill software company. M4DU7 (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:44, 3 June 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. The sole author has requested delete here, and on the article talk page, and has confirmed that request was serious on my talk page. G7 applies, and there is unanimity amongst the editors who have already commented that the page should be deleted so this is not contested - deleting. GirthSummit (blether) 14:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Rinnovamento

[edit]
Italian Rinnovamento (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 is completely unsourced in its scope: there is no such a thing as the 'Italian Rinnovamento'. Such expression was extracted from a couple of articles and interviews (of Mario Draghi) given in Italian, and on these interviews a supposed "historical period" has been invented by one single user, User:Peter39c. I think the existence of an historical period must be sourced by historical studies, or at least a large publication record mentioning that period. So I propose its deletion for a number of overlapping reasons, among which WP:MADEUP, WP:NEO, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NRVE, WP:CRYSTAL (in the infobox it states that this historical period lasts from 2021 to 2030, so it's predicting the future!). Ritchie92 (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ritchie92 (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ritchie92 (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Ritchie92 (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Ritchie92 (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete immediately In 2030 the article of the Italian post pandemic will be written by Ritchie92. --Peter39c (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC) canceled, canceled, because the real wizard advocating the renewal is Ritchie92 !! he is our real leader, he is not Mario Draghi. I do not add anything else so as not to upset those present and create interference. --Peter39c (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sapan Krishna

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

Vanity piece (and effectively unsourced BLP, as there are no footnotes, so it's not clear where the info come from) on a non-notable actor. Search finds nothing even approaching RS sigcov; the article in The Daily Eye listed in the references probably comes closest, but I don't know how reliable it is, and in any case it's based on an interview. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NACTOR. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. No indication of meeting NACTOR or GNG. Ab207 (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: References, citations corrected AmazingVoiceovers (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for adding some footnote citations; however, the great majority of the article remains unsupported. More to point, the new references don't address the main reason for this AfD, namely notability (or rather lack thereof). If you wish to prevent your article being deleted, you need to satisfy either or both of the types of notability mentioned in the nomination. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on my further research on the subject, I have sourced around 20 articles from print media without any web source - included few in citations. Newspaper cutting / pictures are available but WikiMedia doesn't allow upload due to Copyright issues. WP:NACTOR The subject has appeared as a lead actor with prominent visibility on poster - in 3 mainstream movies (with theatrical release in India and available to stream on prominent OTT platforms Amazon Prime and Airtel Xtreme) and 3 music videos with massive (33 Milliom plus) viewership on official channel of Music labels. Has received primary and secondary mentions in around 40 web articles for different projects - few of them included in citations. For WP:GNG Significant primary and secondary coverage in multiple reliable sources are provided like Eastern Eye, India Today and interview by a prominent journalist like Khalid Mohamed. Official artist and movie pages from The Times of India has been included to establish presence of his work on reliable sources. The subject's Verified Facebook profile is also referenced as 'External Links'. Thank you. AmazingVoiceovers (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cited Reference to support WP:GNG recent article on entertainment website Telly Chakkar - Article on Telly Chakkar AmazingVoiceovers (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Dutchman (Pirates of the Caribbean)

[edit]
Flying Dutchman (Pirates of the Caribbean) (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 prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". It was deprodded without any helpful rationale and the article has not been improved. It has no reception/significance/development/whatever section, and is a pure plot summary. I did find this, but it's a WP:INTERVIEW with the film producers. I checked the fan-wiki article at https://pirates.fandom.com/wiki/Flying_Dutchman and it lists no better sources. I am afraid this is one of those articles that may well have home on such fan wikis, but not on Wikipedia (due to not meeting GNG). Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:02, 3 June 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 05:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Etito

[edit]
Jennifer Etito (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 and promotional. The refs are interviews where she says whart she likes, as even the titles indicate. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom and also think Celestina007 would enjoy the many works of this prolific Nigerian editor. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. @Alexandermcnabb, I find your ping to be mischievous, I however know you mean well and your ping a nudge for me to investigate possible undisclosed paid editing. I have done so in the past and without divulging much that is all I am permitted to say. I am however concerned that they possess Autopatrol and are creating a promotional article for a non notable entity. Their eligibility to hold Autopatrol is what is debatable, I’m afraid that’s all I am permitted to say. I’m restrained at the moment by higher authority not to divulge more than this. Celestina007 (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Aishaa14 (talk) 19:53, 5 June 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zorua and Zoroark

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

What makes those Pokemon notable? Even the article's lead states that "The reception for the two Pokémon are relatively mild, with generally favorable fan and critic comments, although the two consistently placed somewhat low in popularity polls." and the tiny reception concurs - they are listed in high double digits or even triple in lists of Pokemon popularity, and have zero recognition outside Pokemon fandom. BEFORE doesn't show anything reliable that's not a mention in passing, no WP:SIGCOV outside game guides 'how to get them/how to play with them'. The best solution with WP:PRESERVE in mind would be to redirect this to List of generation V Pokémon. Hmmm, this also makes me wonder if we need to give the surviving Pokemon articles another pass? It has been a while since the Great Old Pokemon debate (or should it be Great Old Pokemon Purge...? :>). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:50, 3 June 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 04:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the long-standing WP:Pokémon test consensus. I'll also note that the prose is pretty bloated and overly wordy to try to overcompensate. I mean half of the "design" section is just someone describing an image of the Pokémon. The appearance section is a bunch of redundant and tangent filled sentences. The reception is merely a collection listicles and passing mentions of every time someone called it "good" or "cute". It's devoid of any real substance. Or could probably distilled into a concise paragraph at best. Not a stand alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 10 June 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) 03:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Simmons

[edit]
Jade Simmons (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 appear to meet WP:BASIC, WP:NPOL, or WP:NARTIST. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:49, 3 June 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, WP:CSD#G4. — The Earwig (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Richardsons Movie

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
The Richardsons Movie (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 and NFILMS. Heart (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Serbian Orthodox Eparchy of New Gračanica and Midwestern America. ✗plicit 03:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of the Virgin Mary Monastery

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

Despite my due diligence - I do not believe this subject meets WP:GNG. I welcome others discoveries - perhaps someone else will find enough reliable secondary sources to prove otherwise.

I would also be open minded to a REDIRECT to Serbian Orthodox Eparchy of New Gračanica and Midwestern America.

Thanks for assuming good faith with this nomination. Missvain (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:35, 3 June 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_June_3&oldid=1027948838"