Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 18	September 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ojigbani

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

Promotional BLP of a minor pastor sourced mainly to his own books. A search brings up social media profiles, Wikipedia mirrors and bookseller sites but no in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- He seems to be a Nigerian tele-evangelist, specialising in marriage and relationship issues. I cannot tell if he is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A BEFORE search does not bring up enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Princess of Ara 08:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Passes GNG. I did find some independent significant coverage in google books indicating he is a well known and important spiritual leader in Africa; including academics critiquing or including him in religious studies publications. See: [1], [2], [3]. 4meter4 (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale giving by Mccapra, I believe GNG isn’t met just yet. Celestina007 (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No [WP:GNG], and borderline WP:G11. Gentleman wiki (talk) 20:15, 30 September 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 14:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chartered Wealth Manager

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

Articles on this credential were deleted at AfD in 2009 and again in 2010 (the latter discussion weighed down by a lot of puppetry), at which time it was offered by an American Academy of Financial Management. This new instance has been created in recent weeks (as has an article on a Global Academy of Finance and Management which apparently acquired various pieces of the AAFM's IPR in 2015). Given the passage of time, this probably needs another AfD to re-establish consensus, though RJC's comments in the 2010 AfD seem applicable here regarding the AAFM/GAFM credential. (A complication is that Chartered Institute for Securities & Investment offer a qualification of this name, covered briefly at Professional_certification_in_financial_services#CISI_Qualifications, but not mentioned in the present article.) AllyD (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. I couldn't find any reliable significant independent coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. As this is recurring problem, strongly recommending salting this.4meter4 (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thoroughly fails WP:GNG. Gentleman wiki (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify to Draft:A Loud House Christmas. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Loud House Christmas

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

per WP:TOOSOON. All sources are based on the announcement of the green-light which revealed plot and cast, with plans to go into production. No other coverage has been presented, and no evidence that filming has begun. Per WP:NFF, this should not be in the mainspace. Relevant sourced content is already found at The_Loud_House#Television_film. Article could exist in Draft space in the prospect that it receives more coverage upon release. BOVINEBOY2008 14:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify No real sources...and we don't even know the runtime, which could just be regular episode length. Removed the cast section, which is a bad attempt to make the article look larger than it actually is. Nate • (chatter) 15:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Second comment Not noted in the rationale, but this is a live-action film, not an animated project (confused me at first). Still removed the cast because it was a bloated section. Nate • (chatter) 17:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your deletion. It's bad idea to delete parts of articles during discassion. -GorgonaJS (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not if it copies the source word-for-word, which is plagiarism. Re-reverted, and it shouldn't be re-added in that form. Nate • (chatter) 19:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fan of The Loud House myself and have been adding/editing info regarding the upcoming live-action film there... just wanting to confirm that despite what the article/draft may currently say, filming/production has certainly begun- filming began around April/May (not sure how long it actually lasted, but... [4] [5]) and mostly recently they've been releasing trailers/behind-the-scenes videos ([6] [7]). Magitroopa (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, article creator ZionAndrew2005 removed the deletion discussion notice on the top of the article, I've just restored it. Magitroopa (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now copy/pasting straight from sources- WP:COPYVIO. Magitroopa (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, had to revert the character descriptions; the cast list is in the main characters article, and duplicative. Nate • (chatter) 02:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 01:07, 26 September 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 23:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Community Network

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

Fails WP:GNG Ward330 (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:WEB per multiple independent refs in the article and those located in google books. Not clear the a competent WP:BEFORE was done by the nominator. Here are a few examples from google books: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], etc.4meter4 (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per above references - also I did a quick Proquest search, which finds other significant coverage. Nfitz (talk) 01:17, 3 October 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 ambassadors of Madagascar to the United States. Daniel (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zina Andrianarivelo-Razafy

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

This is a run-of-the-mill diplomat from a small country. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Diplomatically-speaking Madagascar is indeed quite unimportant, but this man has held his country's most prestigious ambassadorships for two decades. There must surely be something written about this man, although it is hard to find stuff about Africa and from twenty years ago online. The only secondary sources I could find were this and this, but they are not in-depth. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I also found this in-depth profile, but I'm not familiar with the website. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of ambassadors of Madagascar to the United States.4meter4 (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I agree with User:4meter4 that a redirect to the mentioned list is appropriate here. Gentleman wiki (talk) 20:23, 30 September 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) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final

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

Recreation of deleted page; this exactly matches the deleted page with the exception of undefined references which links to pages that contain nothing more than "NO DATA AVAILABLE". Speedy deletion {{Db-g4}} tag was removed by Materialscientist. No effort made to provide any references to this future event, so WP:CRYSTAL still applies. Mikeblas (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. — Qwerfjkl talk 15:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: or redirect. Notable sporting event scheduled to be held. Can be deleted if not held, but all signs point to it being held. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt until closer to the event per WP:CRYSTAL.4meter4 (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The event is only a few months away, it's common to have an article created in advance of the event actually happening. There seems to be plenty of evidence that the event is actually going to occur. Per WP:BEFORE, I found an article published a week ago that mentions the upcoming event. The original article was deleted back in February, which is admittedly a bit too early for an article on an event in December. But we're a lot closer now. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and definitely do not salt. Salting is a ridiculous action for a page that is likely to be needed very soon. The page is no longer an exact duplicate of the deleted article, so the nomination is now out of date and invalid. It contains sourced information on the impact of Covid on the event. If nothing else, it will become an article on the event cancellation – this is an important event in the ice skating calendar, it will be a big story either way, cancelled or going ahead. The criticism that some of the refs return "No information available" is entirely to be expected. Those are the refs for the official results, so until there are some actual results that is going to remain the case. SpinningSpark 12:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CRYSTAL: "should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Also note that the 2020–21 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final was cancelled, but has an article anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that last year's final has been put up for Afd too. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event is only a few months away, deleting this article only to recreate it later on creates extra work and isn't beneficial to our readers. NemesisAT (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above – the page is going to be re-created with the same content again if it gets deleted now. All signs currently point to the event being held as scheduled, so meets WP:CRYSTAL. Sunnyou31 (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not the actual competition; it should be a section of the main article when and only when it takes place. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per WP:CRYSTAL. ––FormalDude talk 04:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aanchal Goswami

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

Non-notable Indian actress, fails WP:NACTOR. John B123 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eevee01^(talk) 09:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant work yet; hence fails WP:NACTOR defcon5 (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of meeting NACTOR or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:05, 20 September 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 and rename. (non-admin closure) Andyjsmith (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Astrooceanography

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

Neologism failing WP:NEO. No reliable sources given for this term and the only sources I can find on the web are blogs, wikis and other non-reliable sources. It’s just not a term that anyone uses other than casually. Andyjsmith (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Like Andyjsmith, I've searched for information about "Astrooceanography", and found mostly, blogs, wikis, etc, many of them clearly derived from the Wikipedia article. Evidently "Astrooceanography" is not a recognised field under that name. However, there is certainly research relating to oceans on other planets, so is it recognised as a field, but under another name, or is this article merely a synthesis by Wikipedia editors of bits of information from different places into a novel unified concept? My personal feeling is that the article contains significant content on a meaningful topic, and I would like to keep it, under whatever name. However, after the countless times I have told editors that keeping something because one personally likes it, rather than because Wikipedia policy supports keeping it is unacceptable, I can scarcely justify acting contrary to what I have preached to so many others for so long. I therefore have to say Delete unless someone can find reliable sources which treat this as a recognised scientific field in its own right, not a collection of individual examples with no source connecting them together; if anyone can find sources which do that, then it should be keep and rename to whatever name those sources use. JBW (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Planetary oceanography. After posting my message above, I had the brainwave of searching for that title, and found multiple sources. I'll come back and post links to some of them later, but at present I'm editing on my phone, and doing the necessary checking to decide which sources are suitable would be too fiddly. JBW (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don’t think it matters if it’s not a proper field, as long as people are actually ‘’doing’’ planetary oceanography then it’s a thing and we should cover it. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The term I see used is "exo-oceanography". Praemonitus (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Exo-oceanography per Praemonitus. Googling it, it seems to be the same concept, and it looks like there's academic or at the very least reliable sources using that term. casualdejekyll (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. and rename as Praemonitus suggests. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the nominator I’m happy to close this early as Keep and Rename. But I get the impression that Planetary oceanography is in wider use than Exo-oceanography and seems to me to be a more natural term. Any thoughts? Andyjsmith (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a new sub-field so it probably hasn't converged on a particular name yet. We can always change it when one becomes more common. Praemonitus (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Valid point. I'm going to rename it to Planetary oceanography because that's more self explanatory and set up a redirect page at Exo-oceanography. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Djavi Alexandra

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT. Eevee01^(talk) 02:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eevee01^(talk) 02:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eevee01^(talk) 02:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eevee01^(talk) 02:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article in a question does not fail WP:GNG in my opinion. She played a significant role in the movie Kanchana 3 which was a huge hit and she also appeared in several popular music videos. And when we google Ri Djavi Alexandra, we can see significant coverage in several notable channels. Thanks, Billyatthewheels

To qualify WP:NACTOR, she needs significant roles in multiple notable films. Eevee01^(talk) 08:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of playing multiple significant roles to meet WP:NACTOR. Also a case of WP:BLP1E (recent death) where nearly all the sources are about their death, in addition to a case of sexual harrassment. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with Ab207, that this is a case of recent death WP:BLP1E and not enough significant works to establish WP:NACTOR defcon5 (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTRESS. As a recent death fails WP:BLP1E. However, given the sensational nature of her death, it's possible that her death may become notable later if there is sustained coverage. It is WP:TOOSOON though to determine if that is the case.4meter4 (talk) 01:27, 26 September 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. ✗plicit 23:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Davis (attorney)

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

Fails WP:BASIC. I couldn't find much on Google regarding his role as Great Lakes Czar in the Obama administration, suggesting that the role isn't very notable. The sources provided in the article are either non-independent or unreliable. Only one pertinent source (Huffington Post) appears to meet WP:RSP.

His role in the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, a unit of local government, is non-notable per WP:NPOL. Edge3 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article about a lawyer simply doing his/her job. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. As a Czar he has significant coverage where he is the main subject. The best of which is James Janega (June 21, 2009). "Guardian of the Great Lakes: Obama Names Cameron Davis to organize restoration effort". Chicago Tribune. p. 3a.; a substantial article on Davis. Additionally, he has been criticized in media in that role in major publications like: "Obama's Many Policy Czar's Draw Ire From Conservatives". The Washington Post. 16 September 2009. p. A6 S. The Czar position was controvercial and has gotten significant coverage. This book provides some context to his role in the Obama administration which was divisive This book analyzes Davis's contributions to an article in The New York Times. There is a profile of him in this book. Here are a few articles he was interviewed for: [15], [16], Other coverage, includes [17], [18], [19], [20], Additionally, there are a lot of primary government sources in google books, and there are many articles in Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, and The New York Times in which he is interviewed for his opinions or policy making in regards to water management/ environmental issues extending back to the mid 1990s. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have notability WP:SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Just a jumble of archived PDFs for sources. KidAd • SPEAK 00:16, 28 September 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 23:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Territory dependent on the Patriarch

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

There is no source which defines the subject, and the notability of the subject is dubious. Veverve (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -- I would suggest Eastern Catholic territories dependent on patriarchs. This is essentially a list article, so that it does not require sources: the sources will be within the articles listed. Part of my reason for wanting a rename is that there appear to be three patriarchs involved, Jerusalem, Antioch and Babylon (Baghdad). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: This lists five patriarchs. And I do not see why the exact same information one can find on this website should be put on Wikipedia, as it would not provide any added value especially since the article does not reliably define the subject of the article. Veverve (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly a source. However, as I read the linked articles, there are three Catholic denominations (rites), each with its own patriarch, who directly exercises jurisdiction over a non-diocesan territory. I thought this was worth ONE article. I did not find this clearly expressed on gcatholic website. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete At a minimum this needs some citation for the lead sentence, and yes, there do need to be some sources for the various entries. As it stands, it fails verification. Mangoe (talk) 22:30, 26 September 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 Rename. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaldean Catholic Territory Dependent on the Patriarch of Jerusalem

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

There is no source which defines the subject, and the notability of the subject is dubious. Veverve (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -- The article actually says it is dependent on the Patriarch of Babylon, and run since 1970 by officials with various titles, initially vicar-general. It is not a diocese, but might become one. I would suggest Chaldean Catholic Territory of Jerusalem. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Yes, I agree with Peterkingiron - needs a rename. This nameing is awkward - seems to be an official catholic religious area, for which there are references, including - see link here Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:19, 27 September 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Snapdragons

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was previously nominated 13 years ago: it was kept on the basis that they had toured, received national airplay (including a Peel session) and released two albums. Simply gigging and releasing albums don't meet the current criteria at WP:NBAND. While it's possible that a Peel session would fulfill criterion no. 12, I'm not convinced that this alone warrants the band having an article: over 4000 sessions were held, and I would argue that this alone doesn't get the band over the bar. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two albums on Native Records, Two Radio 1 sessions (one for John Peel, one for Simon Mayo), and they got plenty of press while they were around, which unfortunately was during a bit of a black hole as far as the internet's concerned. --Michig (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can remember this band but am unable to find any reliable coverage in a standard web search or a Google Books search (they were pre-Internet). The article certainly needs to be cleaned up, and I volunteer to do so if User:Michig can deliver some of the "plenty of press" mentioned in their vote. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is nothing in the Encyclopaedia of Popular Music (volume vii) by Colin Larkin ISBN 1561592374. Sorry. The joy of all things (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:SIGCOV. I have subscription access to PROQUEST which includes most of the entertainment/music publications in the UK and the USA going back over a century, and absolutely zero coverage of this group was found. Additionally, nothing in the archives of The Guardian, The Observer, or The Independent. Found nothing in britishnewspaperarchives.com either. In short, not convinced that there is press on this group. All we have is primary sources which lack independence. Not notable.4meter4 (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Like doomsdayer520 I remember this band. I've added some references from Melody Maker (a specialist UK music weekly) and a passing reference from The Times. It's disappointing not to easily find more. Dsp13 (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doomsdayer and Michig. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "keep", but challenged someone who says that there is "plenty of press" to actually deliver it. Still waiting. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage will be in print sources and I'm not able to get to anywhere that has archives of print sources at the moment. --Michig (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to fail WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. A bunch of references from the same niche magazine are not independent from one another, and the passing mention in The Times does not appear to be significant coverage that would contribute towards notability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced and fails WP:NBAND. Gentleman wiki (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't unsourced. Did you even look at the article? --Michig (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Michig. I agree more sources, e.g the UK music press, likely exist, and the ones that are reffed aren't so bad, Simon Reynolds, for example. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Melody Maker was one of the UK's main music publications for many years until it was merged with NME, it's certainly not a niche publication. To be covered regularly by its journalists is a strong indication of notability and there are other reliable book sources in the article. The delete vote by the editor claiming there are no sources is highly negligent in my view and one of many quick fire votes for which an editor has warned them on their talkpage. Passes WP:GNG on available evidence as per WP:AGF in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:03, 5 October 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 concensus is that this meets the notability criteria. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dillinger And Capone

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

This would appear to me to fail the WP:NFILM test and most probably any other policies and guideline for film and television related content. It would appear that this was a just "direct-to-video" film. I can see that the article Jon Purdy has never been created. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Entertainment Weekly review cited in article. Another one at TV Guide [21]. Being "direct to video" does not automatically deem something non-noteworthy and should never be used as a deletion argument. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: I added the Entertainment Weekly reference. I'm just about to add a Rotten Tomatoes mention and look at your suggested reference. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not !voting; just merely wanted to state that this is like the 6th version of this article created (into mainspace) by the primary editor over just the past 2 days. There are a number of versions floating in draftspace under various names (just check the user's talk page for the links), so those should be checked if they have any valuable content this one left out. Curbon7 (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7: I believe that the creator copied the article content from the primary draft, Draft:Dillinger and Capone, see diff between draft and initial revision of this article. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've deleted 4 or 5 broken redirects for this article as it was moved around from main space to Draft space several times. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been history-merged into the article. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shirt58 (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks notable, good references. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film was screened at multiple notable film festivals, including the Cannes Film Festival and MystFest in 1995. It then was acquired by Cinemax in 1996, and then HBO in 1997. I added refs to the article for those, and a review by critic Leonard Maltin. As such, it was not "direct to video" and with multiple independent reviews passes GNG and NFILM. My guest is a less then stellar reception at the film festivals led to the decision to shop the movie to cable tv instead of doing a release in theatres. 4meter4 (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelana Mahessa

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL previously deleted via AfD on 5 September 2021, has not met either notability guidelines since JW 1961^Talk 12:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JW 1961^Talk 12:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. JW 1961^Talk 12:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JW 1961^Talk 12:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY and certainly no where near to passing WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. DMySon (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of the sources are new. Is this potentially eligible for WP:G4 speedy deletion? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Spiderone, It probably is, but as a non-admin I can't see the old page or didn't review/see the article earlier this month, perhaps someone who has that info could CSD it, I'd have no objections JW 1961^Talk 14:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note AfD template was removed from the article today, 19 September, by Jajang Surahman. I believe this to have been an error and have therefore restored it. Sorry if I am causing confusion. Elemimele (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Fails NFOOTBALL. Lorenzo the great (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFOOTBALL.4meter4 (talk) 02:39, 26 September 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. Without any references, nothing verifiable could be merged. ✗plicit 12:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert The Riley (song)

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

Not notable as an individual song. wizzito | say hello! 12:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 12:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 12:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as either a non notable song~~, or a hoax.~~ -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 12:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Asartea, it is real, just a demo, though. https://bowiesongs.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/rupert-the-riley/ wizzito | say hello! 12:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Wizzito:, thanks for finding that, amended -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 12:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero in-depth coverage, passes neither WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The song might serve as geek trivia for Bowieheads, but as an unreleased demo with no reliable notice it does not qualify for an article here. (Someone please send the article's creator a tutorial on how to capitalize words.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful content into David Bowie, and Delete the rest. Demos are not automatically notable, and there's no evidence to support that claim that this one is. RomanSpa (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to David Bowie. Fails WP:NSONG per Doomsdayer's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per doomsdayer520. Oppose merge as this is trivial non-encyclopedic WP:Fancruft, and not seeing any value to a redirect.4meter4 (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nagarukhra

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

Long-running dispute concerning the notability of a place with this name and its relation to a place described at Ukrah. See several years-worth of discussion here and at Ukrah for some background. Hopefully a formal discussion will settle this dispute, at least on paper. Good luck. Lithopsian (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. For Wikipedia's purposes, Nagarukhra is a neologism pushed by multiple editors in wiki and maybe some people in the real world. The Nagarukrah campaign has been running in Wikipedia for six years, and the only supporting references have been user-generated content. Other efforts include a walled garden of stubs (e.g. [22] and [23]) that make census-recognized villages parts of Nagarukrah. One stated rationale for deleting Ukrah in favor of Nagarukrah is to push new information into Google and Google maps.[24] This is all contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Google maps (link), Ukrha and Nagarukhra are over 100 miles / 160km apart. Not sure why Nagarukhra was repeatedly redirected to Ukrha nor why the numerous attempts were made to hijack Ukrah.

Neither আকাশ নাথ সরকার (talk · contribs) nor Iamakashnathsarkar (talk · contribs) appear to be communicating with each other, other editors, me, nor leaving wp:ES. My last comment on আকাশ নাথ সরকার's talk page was replied to.

There is no listing of Nagarukhra on the list of towns in 2011 census of West Bengal: https://censusindia.gov.in/towns/town.htm: https://censusindia.gov.in/towns/wb_towns.pdf Adakiko (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps takes some of its information from user-generated sources, including OpenStreetMap. Multiple hoax settlements have been introduced into Wikipedia this way (e.g. Midzemuthleiy, Delaware). In this case, the Ukrah found at the link is Ukra in Paschim district (no relation). Nagarukra has replaced Ukrah in Nadia district on Google Maps. There may be a real-world campaign on the ground, but there is nothing beyond user-generated content to confirm that, never mind anything official. Editors assert that Nagarukra town that has absorbed Ukrah and adjacent villages in Nadia district. There is no reliable evidence. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite confusing. It appears the majority maps linked to by geohack show the Ukhra area as Nagarukra Adakiko (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT Per Gene93k above. Article has been deleted three times. log Given they appear unrelated, I see no reason for a redirect to Ukhra. I have not found any significant sources showing notability. Presumably governed by WP:GEOLAND. The only source on Nagarukra would appear to have been generated by the the article's primary editor: open street map history Adakiko (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: The article's creator has updated it with content and citations. However, the verifiable content is copied from Ukrah, including the citations. The citations supporting Nagarukra appear to be self-published or the usual blacklist-worthy mirrors with user-generated content. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no mention about the place in census record, but whatever it was doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Jeet Dev^talk 11:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I speedied this page ages ago because I stumbled on it & thought it was a dupe article then found the issues described in multiple posts above. Should likely be salted as well. JamesG5 (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per Gene93k.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per Gene93k. আকাশ নাথ সরকার (talk) 05:17, 26 September 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett la Queen

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creep^Talk 10:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added some info abt her popularity, plus, as it was already written, she got Golden Gramophone Award (Russian music award). HalfOfDwarf (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article has multiple Russian language sources. Without a compelling source analysis from the nominator and a more detailed assertion as to why the subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO (such as why an award win doesn't count), I'm not seeing a strong case for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the sources then.

Ref 1 and 2. Can't be used to establish notability. They are red in the NPP script as unreliable.

Ref 3. Is undefined but a web search finds О’скар which is a nano profile and is non-RS. An image and instagram links. It is junk.

Ref 4. Translation of the artile title: An interview in the entertainment section.

Ref 5. Non-RS is a listing of radio programs.

Ref 6. He got beat up, report.

Ref 7. Annoucement.

Ref 8 is a dead link.

Ref 9 is a Gazetta, the only real secondary source.

There some minor coverage but not sufficient for an article. 5 of the 9 references are junk, one is an interview, one is a court report of being beat up and one is a real secondary source. The article subject posits themselves as a singer. They're is no evidence been provided that the subject is a singer. The article is non-notable at this time. scope_creep^Talk 12:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more sources: infox.ru, riafan.ru, profile.ru, daily.afisha.ru, yuga.ru, ren.tv, tvc.ru, newkuban.ru, starhit.ru, saltmag.ru, life.ru --HalfOfDwarf (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This artist was very famous in the 90's. That's why he got the Golden Gramophone award. Due to some issues with his producer he had to stop using the artistic name Oscar and migrated to the US. Right now she's less famous under a new artistic name and gender than he used to be 20 years ago. At least the sources #17 and #22 are good enough. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 01:48, 5 October 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 12:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Stafford Jones

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 10:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references are way more than passing references. Some mention him in the headline. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I'm seeing. It is a BLP and all of them in the first block should be in-depth. None of them in the block are specific about him, many of them a bare search urls. Where is the WP:SECONDARY sourcing that can notability. In fact, not one of the 12 references is specificly about him, which against policy and doesn't support WP:BLP. scope_creep^Talk 15:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The allegation is that the William Stafford Jones entry fails the general notability guideline for significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). The guideline states:

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject . . . ‘Significant coverage’ addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.”

“Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage” are presumed to be notable. (Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges)

The Jones entry clearly meets the “significant coverage” standard. The entry cites articles over a nine-year period, involving multiple political issues, where Jones is either the main topic or among the main topics of the coverage. These articles provide extensive information about Jones such that the entry relies on no original research and every factual claim in the entry is supported by referenced authorities.

(Aside: The entry contains some references where Jones is not the main topic, but these references provide authority for other background statements in the entry. That reference style is consistent with the notability guidelines. WP:SIGCOV: “These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list.”)

Significant coverage is established by (at minimum) the following references in the entry:

Curry, Christopher (2012-09-15). "Legislator files elections complaint against Alachua County GOP chief". Gainesville Sun. The article reports about a state election complaint that was filed against Jones. Jones is featured prominently in the article’s sub-headline: “A state senator has filed an elections complaint against Stafford Jones over a political committee Jones chairs that is sending out mailers attacking Democratic legislative candidates while listing no contributions or expenditures.” Jones is the main topic of the article, mentioned or referred to in almost every paragraph of the article.

Morgan, Watkins (2014-08-16). "Robocalls using Crist's words from 2006 defended, assailed". Gainesville Sun. The sub-headline reads: “Alachua County Republican Executive Committee Chairman Stafford Jones has drawn some recent attention this election season for a controversial robocall.” Jones is the focus of the article, and the article notes that Jones has a history of controversial campaigning tactics.

Dixon, Matt (2015-07-16). "Depositions show Florida GOP push for favorable Senate lines". Politico. Numerous state and national outlets covered Jones’ involvement in Florida’s 2011 congressional redistricting that the Florida Supreme Court declared unconstitutional. A 2015 Politico article mentioned Jones 17 times (not including pronouns) and detailed what it described as Jones’ “starring role” in the gerrymandering process.

Caplan, Andrew (2019-01-12). "Behind the scenes, Bainter pulls strings". Gainesville Sun. The article mentions Jones 21 times, not including numerous additional pronoun references. This longform article reports how dark money is influencing elections in Florida, and a central focus of the article is about how Jones is behind the money. A large section of the article titled, “The Money,” provides extensive background information on Jones and explains his influence in Florida politics.

Henderson, John (2021-02-26). "Watchdog group: Nonprofits broke IRS laws, gave nearly $3 million to Republican campaigns". Gainesville Sun. The article is about how political committees headed by Jones broke IRS laws by failing to disclose millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Jones is the central figure of the story, he’s mentioned 16 times (not including pronouns), and his headshot is the only image in the article.

User:Scope_creep claims, “None of [the entry’s references] are specific [sic] about him, many of them a [sic] bare search urls. . . In fact, not one of the 12 references is specificly [sic] about him…” ScopeCreep’s assertions are clearly and demonstrably false. Participants in a deletion process should carefully review all references before voting. --Elindstr (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elindstr.4meter4 (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Muthukumara Samy Temple, Vennandur

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

Small insignificant temple with no sources available online. Given sources are fake. Venkat TL (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG is not met. Why are the sources fake? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete- Appears to fail WP:GEOFEAT. Cannot find significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources. Gentleman wiki (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:lacks coverage WP:SIGCOV fails GNG DEFCON5 (talk) 03:22, 3 October 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 12:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron M. Johnson

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

Non-notable muscian. Possible toosoon. scope_creep^Talk 09:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG with references like this one. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a couple of stories in the regional newspaper, stating he was one of 30, going to play at the postparty Grammies and a followup; of local interest only and hardly notable. The WSJ is a passing mention, the rest are blogs, annoucements and passing mentions. There is no other coverage for this obscure muscian. scope_creep^Talk 15:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG owing not only to reliable if regional refs like the aforementioned but also a high-profile editorial by subject. (About author: "Considered one of the most compelling voices of his generation, the reclusive young enfant terrible of jazz is a living and breathing example of the Beat ethos.")—Swmmng (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This first is a [{WP:SPS]], he wrote it. The 2nd one I can't check at the moment, but will when I get to my pc. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Enough coverage, albeit somewhat regional, for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:30, 26 September 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) ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 09:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Akkad

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources 90% from unknown local websites + promotional article for this boy's with social media Hasan AB123 (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hasan AB123 (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "unknown local websites" include Deutsche Welle, Germany's national overseas broadcaster. The references may be unfamiliar to a North American audience, but I think they add up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdulrahman Akkad, was closed as Keep on July 12, 2021. The nominator of the first AfD, Aliaboomar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), was blocked as a sockpuppet. رر(talk • contribs) 11:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment hello Eastmain , Can you see the unknown local sites and their Alexa rank and then judge them for reliability?

Let's analyze the sites, 1- https://mannschaft.com/ This site is ranked according to Alexa 8 million, which is a number that is not a good site ranking. Anyone can create a site and its ranking becomes like this! 2- https://philosophia-perennis.com/ same, and this site https://xsxm.de/ave-281-abdulrahman-akkad/ He has no rank, also 90% like this and sources are PR pieces anyways --Hasan AB123 (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is plenty of mainstream German coverage. Mccapra (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant news coverage exists. Peter303x (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of reliable sources proving notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am fairly certain the AfD nominator is a sock of this prolific user, and he has been canvassing this anyway. Suggest speedy close as keep/non-procedural. Kingsif (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep For now. Although I'm not as sure about the referencing as others. A paring down of promotional language & Peacocking and removal of unreliable sourcing (which currently include Instagram, Facebook, and Podcast interviews) is needed at minimum and notability should also be easier to assess afterwards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy Moss-Scott

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

BLP of a musician with no claim of notability. A search for sources suggests the subject does not pass any of the criteria for WP:SINGER. Mccapra (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely fails all 12 stated criteria listed at WP:SINGER as far as I can tell. ExRat (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SINGER. HouseBlaster^talk 13:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All I found during a WP:BEFORE search was her social media and music download sites. Does not meet notability criteria for WP:GNG nor WP:MUSICBIO Netherzone (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fall II Rise

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

Non-notable band. scope_creep^Talk 09:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting the comment on the talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Criteria

(Copied from talk page. Hopefully I'm doing this correctly.) I believe the band meets at least some of the following criteria. However, I'm new to Wikipedia so I do welcome input from others and discussion on the topic. I do realize the article has some problems as far as the actual writing goes, but that's more on me for not being an experienced writer, rather than the subject matter itself. Criteria I think are applicable:

(1) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, publisheed works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
There are articles by major news outlets in Puerto Rico (Noticentro, Primera Hora), a featured segment in talk show Pégate al Medio Día, and an interview in Maximum Ink Magazine from Wisconsin. These are all in the references for the article.
(10) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable.
Their single End of Days was used for a couple of weeks as the theme song for Puerto Rican TV show WWC, which is the main wrestling show in Puerto Rico.
(11) Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
Their single Four was played regularly on major Puerto Rican radio stations. I'm trying to find out if there's a log of what was played when, since there's no Puerto Rico music charts, our music charting gets lumped in with US as a whole, I believe. However, the radio play is mentioned in some of the references included in the article. This might take a good while to corroborate, I think I'll have to email the radio stations directly and ask if they have a link to an archive of some sort like that. It was about 10 years ago, so I'm not sure exactly, but I think AlfaRock (now AZ Rock Radio, they moved to online-only) may have been the main station to give them airplay, since it was the local rock radio station at the time.

Moony483 (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moony483: You know musicbio. I know the WP:MUSICBIO. I use it almost every day. Where is the references that show the band is notable, e.g. reviews of work, WP:SECONDARY sources that can satisfy musicbio. Ref 1,2, 4,5,6 are non-RS, meaning they are non-notable. Ref 3 is an interview, but every new band gets interviewed and its a local magazine, indicating its a local band. Where is the coverage, the reviews, the secondary sources. scope_creep^Talk 11:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE is not a good argument and would borderline have been a reason to speedy keep this, if there had been no further discussion due to the talk page comment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the first 13 references:

Ref 1,2,4,5,6, 10,11,12,13 are non-RS and can't be used to establish notability.

Ref 3: Its an interview. Looks like a blog. No editorial board. Effectively non-RS.

Ref 7 An annoucement that they are supporting Evanescence. Really poor.

Ref 8 Review of a Evanescence gig.

Ref 9 Data listing. Non-RS.

The rest are similar poor. The band is completky non-notable. There is no social media coverage. There is stream on Spotify, Apple Music, Soundcloud, Amazon and Napster. They are non-notable at this time. scope_creep^Talk 15:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Okay, I see what you mean. I have two questions, though. First, for references 10 - 13, I understand YouTube itself isn't generally considered a reliable source. However, the videos (if you look at them) are reuploads of content that was televised on a national TV network. I've been unable to find those episodes online, but the show itself is notable (has its own Wikipedia page) and in the videos you can hear the song playing. Is there a better way to cite that then? Simply saying those sources don't count seems kind of strange to me. Then my second question is regarding the airplay: it's been referenced in other places, but I myself don't know of a way to obtain tracklist records from 10 years ago (and as I noted, I've been trying to contact the radio stations about it to see if they can point me anywhere). However, that also doesn't mean that it didn't happen. What then? And a third question actually: is reference 5 non-reliable because of it being on YouTube? Because same situation as the wrestling TV show: it's content that was on national TV, the show is documented in the television network's own website (and still runs today actually), but I can't find the original video on their site so as to cite it from there. I have a similar issue with some radio interviews/shows (as noted in the article's talk page) where there are links on their Facebook page to the radio station's show, but the links are dead and I haven't been able to contact the station for a live link; however, that doesn't mean the interviews/shows never aired, it just measn I personally can't find them due to link rot. Naturally I understand the band themselves saying "we were interviewed" isn't reliable, but if the dead link is a link from the radio station's website and they're just sharing that, isn't that a third party?

I appreciate you taking the time to look over this and explain more thoroughly, because honestly I'm still just trying to learn and understand how Wikipedia works. I'm not attempting to discredit your knowledge, I'm asking genuine questions, that's all.

Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The sources presented are almost entirely social media and there is little more apparent in searching. The few other sources are mere mentions in RS, which cannot be considered to be evidence of notability. What coverage is significant is not in reliable or independent sources and what coverage is in reliable or independent sources is not significant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Eggishorn, who puts it well: none of the sources (either in the article or elsewhere) are significant and reliable/independent. The band thus fails the GNG, and there's no indication that any of the criteria at WP:NBAND are met. (Oh, and my apologies for relisting this a third time, which was quite accidental. Closers should, as always, feel free to close at any time without waiting another seven days.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:20, 15 October 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvesh Asthana

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

Non-notable poet and writer. Refs are blogs and annoucement. No reviews of work. Rests on Yash Bharti award which had 73 awardees and huge number of categories. scope_creep^Talk 09:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is known stage or spoken poet, who has performed India and abroad, and appeared on various TV shows to perform poetry. The poet has also authored more than 10 books, all of them are in Hindi. I have cited whatever I could found on Google. He has been recipient of UP State's highest civilian honor, Yash Bharati and Uttar Pradesh government's Sohan Lal Dwivedi Award and others. Most of the references cited in the page are well known Hindi newspapers such as Dainik Jagran, Patrika, Amar Ujala, Hindustan (newspaper), Navbharat Times, and a few are English news publications like Hindustan Times. They are NOT blogs. The topic meets Wikipedia's Notability guidelines, hence I vote to keep the page.--Ajinkyasingh (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep An obviously notable poet and author. And the AfD saying "Refs are blogs and annoucement," that is absolutely wrong. This article has plenty of reliable sources to prove notability, including sources such as the Navbharat Times and the Hindustan Times, two of the largest and best-known papers in India.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first Navbharat Times is about the father, not the son, and in its 20 lines, hardly in-depth. The second Navbharat Times is an annoucement, the third is about some foundation, not the subject. The Hindustan Times is about an award, that doesn't have any article on Wikipedia. None of them are in-depth. You haven't looked at them have you. scope_creep^Talk 20:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the reviews of the poetry? scope_creep^Talk 20:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has been two weeks since the Afd was posted and no offer of any reviews of the mans work to show that he is notable. Where is the reviews that satisfy WP:POET. Two reviews in a notable journal, will define him as a poet, otherwise he is a storyteller, of which there is hundreds in India. The Hindustan Times, a great paper, is a passing mention. Quantity does not quality. Reviews count. scope_creep^Talk 11:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Given that the nominator has mislabeled non-blog sources as blogs and misidentified the nature and content of other sources, it’s clear that a fair, accurate, and balanced source analysis was not done. As such, I am not seeing a strong argument for deletion based in a non-biased and factually accurate assessment.4meter4 (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: If you keep making untrue statements, I will take you to Ani. It is a personal attack. This is the 2nd time I've had to give you a warning. The article has been updated before you posted and the blogs have been removed. Where is the reviews of the mans work, or a reference to prove he won the award. scope_creep^Talk 13:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANi, Really? It was an honest error on my part if that’s the case. I wasn’t being untruthful, but calling out what I believed to be true at the time. I’ll note that Southern Nights called you out for the same thing above, and that comment colored my view when looking at the article originally. I didn’t think to look at older versions of the article, so apologies if you were addressing issues that were already remedied. I do make mistakes from time to time.

Regardless, I stand by what I said in terms of the need for a better more detailed source analysis to prove that deletion is the best choice. For example, all of the award statements are followed by inline citations. Are you claiming these sources don’t verify the content? I don’t read Hindi, do you? You are asking for evidence, but to all appearances the evidence is there in presumably the foreign language refs cited. If you are going to claim the sources don’t verify the content, do us a favor and make a source analysis chart where the issues can clearly be seen and talked about. Otherwise I’m going to assume good faith on the foreign language content I can’t read. The ball is in your court. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can't see an obvious consensus, more input is needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @4meter4: That is cool. It is very easy to vote keep on these Afd's. The system is naturally skewed towards keeping the article and sources analysis is great in principle, but with deletion review, it is getting and getting harder and harder to remove the junk. This is a junk article. Any author needs reviews. Where are they? Looking at the references for a BLP.

Ref 1 in weekleyvoice.com that indicate he attended the Comedy Poetry Festival (Hasya Kavi Sammelan) at the Courtyard By Marriott Brampton.

Ref 2 LUCKNOW Comic poet Sarvesh Asthana would be representing Lucknow at the Kavi Sammelan organized by the All-India Hindi Akademi at Lal Qila in New Delhi on January 10. The event is organized to mark Republic Day celebrations every year. A recipient of Kaka Hathrasi Award and Yash Bharti Award, Asthana has toured many other countries to popularize Hindi poetry. This an annoucement of an event.

Ref 3 Another noted poet and Yash Bharti awardee Sarvesh Asthana said, “I will meet the chief minister with the delegation of award winners, I will speak my mind there.” A passing mention and annoucement.

Ref 4 States he won the award. 73 people on the same time won the award.

Ref 5 An annoucement. Eminent poet Sarvesh Asthana from Lucknow is also coming to attend this event to tickle everyone with his funny compositions in satire A passing mention.

Ref 6 Sarvesh Asthana has been named advisor to the Indian Council for Cultural Relations A passing mention. A very short paragraph indicating he do his best for young artists. Same annoucement.

Ref 7 Annoucement of celebration of freedom fighter and details the father of Sarvesh. A passing mention.

Ref 8 Sarvesh Asthana of Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh is a famous satirist who has participated in Kavi Sammelans and Mushairas since 1989.

Ref 9 Sarvesh Asthana of Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh is a famous satirist who has participated in Kavi Sammelans and Mushairas since 1989 Ref 8 and 9 are profiles.

Ref 10 Sarvesh Asthana of Lucknow, a recipient of Uttar Pradesh’s highest civilian award ‘Yash Bharati’ and numerous national and international awards, is a famous satirist who has been participating in Kavi Sammelans and Mushairas since 1989.

Six of the 10 references are annoucements. Two of them are taken from the same profile. They are very poor for a BLP. The award that is seen as prestigious doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. That doesn't indicate it is non-notable, but 73 people received the same award on the same day, which makes it suspect. Where is reviews of his work. Is it case that western poets always need to have reviews of their work on here, and eastern poets don't? Two reviews in a recognised academic or poetry journal that would do it. scope_creep^Talk 15:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're is a lots of low-quality coverage on the subject with no reviews. Please read Paid news in India. I don't see secondary sources for this BLP, nor reviews. scope_creep^Talk 16:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You have mentioned twice that Yash Bharati has no separate Wikipedia page. I tink, you are mistaken, the prestigious award has a Wikipedia page. You can check, Yash Bharati.

About reviews, the subject is performing poet, a kind of stage artist. Such poets are popular because of their performance and popularising Hindi or folk poetry and literature through their performance. Due to his contribution in Hindi literature, he was honored with Yash Bharati by the Uttar Pradesh government. I research and found a few more reference such as Amar Ujala (1), Prabhasakshi (2), Hindustan (newspaper) (3), (4), (5) I might add it later. Seeing his media coverage, he clearly meets the Wikipedia:BASIC of Notability and as he is the recipient of prestigious Yash Bharati for his contribution in literature, he meets WP:NPEOPLE and WP:ANYBIO.--Ajinkyasingh (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting that up. I didn't see it. You seems to posting up lots of low-quality small paragraphs here and there. Where are the reviews of his poetry, to indicate he is not. Not annoucements, not clickbaits sites, not wee bits of PR or small paragraphs of past events. Real secondary sources, reviews of his work in a critical poetry journal. Two of them and this Afd will close immediately. scope_creep^Talk 20:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

: there are discussions about him and his poetry in Sāhitya-bhāratī, by Uttara Pradeśa Hindī Saṃsthāna (a copy is held by at least one mighty western university (the University of Michigan), it must be notable if it's not on its own just as a western university is keeping the copy despite being foreign language book). There are references also in Ataeva, again by Uttara Pradeśa Hindī Saṃsthāna. Uttar Pradesh Chief minister Yogi Adityanath is the principal administrator of Uttara Pradeśa Hindī Saṃsthāna. Asthana's poetry has reference in discussions in Chāyānata and Vatana hai to hama haiṃ by Bhārata Buka Seṇṭara. Copy of the later text is available at eleven (11) US University libraries as per Worldcat despite its being a Hindi text. I am neither in favor of keeping this article nor deleting it - just stating the facts. Di xiku 15:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked.[reply]

Yip, I understand he written 7 books and libraries hold these books. Where is the reviews of any of these books, and the poetry they contain? scope_creep^Talk 20:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. None of the sources focus, at least mostly, either on him as a person, or his work. Dege31 (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Substantive analysis of the sources is still lacking.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 10:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm astounded at the personal attacks in this discussion. When I voted a strong keep earlier, the person who posted this AfD said I must not have read the references and kept asking where the reviews are. Notability on Wikipedia for writers isn't based solely on reviews. Looking at the media sources out there it is obvious there's enough for notability. For example, this article in the Indo American News discusses his poetry and life alongside two other poets. He's also featured in multiple articles in the Times of India, the largest English language newspaper in the country, and the Hindustan Times, another large English paper (for links see 1, 2, 3). And there are more non-English source focused on this subject (check out this article on him, or this one). Or check out the 94 other media articles about him from the last few years in Google News! That's 94 news articles either about this poet or mentioning him in the last few years. Do you know how few poets in the world receive that much media attention? Finally the government of Uttar Pradesh, a state with a population of nearly 200 million people, gave him their top civilian award the Yash Bharati. If the United Kingdom, a country with a population of only 67 million, gave a poet their top civilian award, we wouldn't be debating if they were notable or not. We'd accept they were notable. The totality of the reliable coverage on this subject and the significant awards he's received support notability. It's that simple. --SouthernNights (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're was no personal attacks on this page, and if you repeat that again, your going straight up to AN. Reviews are the only thing that can prove the person is a poet. scope_creep^Talk 14:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are not the only thing that prove a person is a poet. As stated in the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people under creative professionals, notability can be determined by "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." So reviews are one way to prove notability, but so are multiple independent periodical articles, which we have plenty of here. As for personal attacks, you stated "You haven't looked at them have you" in your original response to me, referring to me not reading the references. That was an attack, as is threatening to take me to AN if I repeat that. That has no place in an AfD.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As other commentators said, it was awarded to 73 people at the same time, not only to him. So it's as if eg. he received it in Gabon. Even in that case, it would count towards notability if it was exclusive. But considering it is not, it's incomparable. The number of news articles mentioning him is not relevant, because routine coverage and significant coverage are not the same thing. There are many tabloids covering reality show participants, as well, here and there. Do they cover him or his work as the focus, for more than a small paragraph? In all the sources given, the subject is mentioned in passing or collectively. Dege31 (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The award doesn't appear to be given out every year so yes, they give it to multiple people when it is awarded. But none of that takes away from it's significance or proof of notability. The award appears similar to the Order of the British Empire, which is also awarded to multiple people at one time yet is also strong proof of notability for a subject. And yes, some of the articles I referenced only discuss him for a paragraph or two, but others focus extensively on this work. Both of the Hindu-language newspaper articles I linked to feature in-depth video interviews with the subject, one in the Rajasthan Patrika paper and the other in the Hindustan Dainik. (Hindustan Dainik article and Rajasthan Patrika article). Both of these Hindu-language papers have circulations in the millions and ran articles exclusively about him, with video interviews. Again, the totality of the media coverage and the awards he's received support notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as he received a major award.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The early references, which appear to be the ones attesting notability, translated contain bare mentions or no mention. The first claim to notability, awarded the Yash Bharati, is awarded to many people, the vast majority not notable, and there is no comment to be found about him receiving the awards. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Joudaki

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

Contested draftify (which is why I am down as the 'article creator') and then contested PROD. I agree with User:Sir Sputnik's rationale "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league." For example, Soccerway confirms no appearances yet. In my view, draftify was the best option and what we do for similar cases.

Please bear in mind that searching "علی جودکی" will bring back a lot of false positives and partial matches. Out of all of the articles that are about him, I can only find routine news. All articles are either brief announcements of call up to first team and passing mentions in a friendly match report. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reason to draftify as the article isn't well-developed yet. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per my original prod rationale. He has not played in a fully professional league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not satisfy association football notability or general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:16, 21 September 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 19:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Sustainable Communication

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

Non-notable company per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are lots of online references and citations to this nonprofit that can be seen through Google Scholar and Google Books. I added some as references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: I looked at the sources you added and I see them as trivial mentions. SL93 (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I can't identify anything that supplies the organization with substantial coverage. The occasional "according to the Institute for Sustainable Communication" is not enough to establish notability, particularly under NCORP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of independent and reliable references. There's not any assertion of notability. here.Brayan ocaner (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources in the article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:03, 11 October 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 article was deleted under CSD A7 (and its creator indefinitely blocked as a sock) shortly after this nomination was opened. (non-admin closure) jp×g 04:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Von Taghogho Apochi

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

Recently-created, unreferenced, self-promotional stub. WP:BEFORE yields no news results for the full name, and four for first+last (with none coming close to SIGCOV). Straight Google search returns six results for the full name and a few for the first+last (again, nothing resembling SIGCOV). I don't see an assertion of notability in the article. I'm not familiar with the reliability of Nigerian outlets, though; I'll withdraw this nomination if someone makes a reasonable claim to the validity of extant sources. jp×g 08:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ – A WP:BEFORE search does not bring up enough sources to demonstrate that WP:GNG is met. This is the only source that reports him having a significant role; therefore subject does not meet WP:ENT. Princess of Ara 10:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it’s up fir speedy deletion now anyway. Mccapra (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Was waiting for the outcome of my UAA report before changing my vote to Speedy Delete under G5 criteria. Princess of Ara 11:52, 19 September 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hilal Kaplan

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

I don't see where a columnist for a turkish newspaper is notable here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep She is a Turkish journalist and I think she is a notable. because she has a page in Arabic and Turkish Wikipedia

--Hasan AB123 (talk) 09:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERLANGS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject's nationality doesn't matter. If the references in the Turkish and Arabic wikipedias (and others available online) are about her rather than by her, then notability is established. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she has won several national level awards for her work. Mccapra (talk) 11:38, 19 September 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 Williams-Wynn baronets. I discounted the 'close' argument, which seems to me to fall into 'assume bad faith' territory. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn, 11th Baronet

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Possible ATD is merge/redirect to Williams-Wynn baronets. Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article would be enough to stablish notability if it hadn't appeared in the Daily Mail. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Williams-Wynn baronets. A dalliance with a female groom may be fit for a rag like the Daily Mail, but hardly constitutes notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Close as out of process. This AFD was launched less than 5 minutes after unrelated edits elsewhere. Absolutely zero chance WP:BEFORE was even considered. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment user:Stalwart111, you are making allegations of what is going on in someone else's head (on several pages) and misjudging it. As has been recommended to WIkiproject Notability before, the aim when assessing CAT:NN is partly to make sure AfD is never inundated, and so I keep an eye on numbers in the system, and delay nominating until there is more space for them, and then put them in together. Monitoring and assessing CAT:NN is a difficult balancing act. We won't always get it right, but are trying our best. This deserves to be judged on its merits, or lack thereof, not on what you guess has been going on in a stranger's brain. Boleyn (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - What nonsense! The majority of your nominations are completed less than 2 minutes after edits elsewhere. With a massive 5-minute gap, this one is an anomaly. There's no way you're completing anything close to what WP:BEFORE requires and your nominations are just disruptive. Eventually someone will have the guts to block you. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Very little of the article is actually about the individual in question.2601:241:300:B610:D158:6D5E:6128:D10C (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Williams-Wynn baronets because the Daily Mail is not good enough coverage.--Creoda (talk) 12:30, 3 October 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 Masoud Zoohori as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Neshat

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

This internet radio station does not meet the WP:GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is the only round-the-clock Persian media in Australia and covered by reliable sources (for example, The Weekly Review). Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are weak. Coverage is mainly about a journalist who worked for this station that was killed. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree there is only 1 (arguably) IRS source (The Weekly Review). As it stands the page fails WP:GNG. Given that one IRS source was from 2015 it seems unlikely the subject will garner more, but to be fair let's call it at least WP:TOOSOON. Cabrils (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Masoud Zoohori who's the owner of the internet station. Fails WP:GNG per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyong a source from The Weekly Review. SBKSPP (talk) 03:25, 25 September 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. I withdraw my nomination. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 11:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mtawali

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

Second citation is about schools, and the author has been indeffed. Qwerfjkl talk 06:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Qwerfjkl talk 06:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I salvaged this one. It now has an inbox with coordinates references to GeoNames. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a crap article but it is a place. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Appears to be a recognised settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, like it or not, it passes WP:GEOLAND Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:31, 26 September 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. I withdraw my nomination. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 06:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandela, Mali

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

The final two citations are bogus, and the author has been indeffed. Qwerfjkl talk 06:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Qwerfjkl talk 06:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I salvaged this one. GEOnet is back up, and I confirmed the coordinates there and removed the irrelevant references. We now have a perfectly good geo-stub. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Appears to be a recognised settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:58, 25 September 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. The delete arguments are far stronger in policy here. Asserting that the article has "a reasonably long list of sources" and that "some probably are" independent just will not wash. No specific sources were pointed to in the discussion that actually confirm notability despite being requested to do so. The rest of the KEEP contributors simply asserted that NCHURCH had been met, which plainly it has not unless and until the above point is addressed. SpinningSpark 13:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Common Wealth of Zion Assembly

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

Apparently non-notable religious organization. A search turns up nothing contributing to GNG, while the cited references are either dead, suspended, classified as dangerous, self-published, or do not constitute significant coverage.

It is possible that the dead/suspended/dangerous sources did meet GNG, but I consider that unlikely. BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you suggesting the various in-country news coverage of allegations against the senior pastor don't count towards notability? Jclemens (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- They count for the pastor (though WP:BLP1E would have to be considered), but I don't believe constitute significant coverage of the organization. If an article for the pastor exists it would make sense to redirect the organization to them, IMO. BilledMammal (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As a church with 5 campuses, this is effectively a small denomination. There is a reasonably long list of sources, some of which may not be independent, but some probably are. The (unverified) church attendance of 20,000 even if the total from all campuses is probably approaching that of a mega-church. All in all, I think there is enough here for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not notable at all. --RamotHacker (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per Peterkingiron as subject satisfy NCHURCH and NONPROFIT. Dfertileplain (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets NCHURCH per Peterkingiron.4meter4 (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:4meter4, User:Dfertileplain and User:Peterkingiron; WP:NCHURCH just says that they must have met the heightened requirements of WP:NCORP, which states "[It is] notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." WP:ORGCRIT then provides an in depth definition of those words.

My own review of the citations, and my own before search, suggests to me that we do not meet this; perhaps one of you can provide WP:THREE to prove that we do? BilledMammal (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Peterkingiron's and subsequent keep votes aren't based in policy. As BilledAnimal states, NCHURCH explicitly sets the standard to meet which must either fulfill the requirements laid out in the WP:GNG or those in WP:ORG/WP:NONPROFIT. Nothing implies these churches operates at a national or international level, and the church has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. The sources that are provided are either insignificant and merely mention the church in passing, aren't independent of the subject, or aren't reliable sources. Seddon ^talk 21:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude talk 06:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional article, lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:31, 19 September 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 Withdrawing per Mx. Granger's sources. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Beijing Tiananmen

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

Neither this article, nor any translation of this article in other languages except Japanese, cites any sources (and none of translations are cited). The Japanese wikipedia links to a People's Daily article that has no discernible context and this report, which I am unable to access or read but may be potentially fruitful for Japanese language readers. Beyond this, there's no indication that this song is notable that I can find other than the song exists and that there exist recordings of it, so I'm unsure what to make of this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I see lots of Chinese-language sources: [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]. (The last two are paywalled.) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep per the sources above, which cover it in depth. The Chinese is very simple, so the translation is straightforward, though you can find it easily online – it seems popular on language learning sites as it's so simple.2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:CD90:53D0:5B76:9D48 (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mills Godwin. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Godwin

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

Fails WP:GNG. Absolutely no reason for this deceased minor to have a page. WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E apply. Redirect to Mills Godwin if there is no consensus to delete. KidAd • SPEAK 03:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mills Godwin per nom (coverage at that page is sufficient). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - a tragic tale, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rolando Bacci

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

I can't find any independent sources on this person. It doesn't appear that he meets any of the notability indicators for musicians, and if this article was new, it almost would be speedy-deletable. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Evidence against WP:MUSICBIO not found. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Hydronium Hydroxide. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no claim of notability and entirely promotional. Mccapra (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 2010 Imperative

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks independent sources to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:59, 25 September 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Nocera

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

promotional biography of a newspaper columnist, sourced to his own work. The purpose of his job is to give his opinions; the purpose of WP is not to repeat them. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He meets WP:AUTHOR with 3 Gerald Loeb Awards and a Pulitzer Prize for Commentary finalist spot, among other national-level awards. At least some of his books look like they meet WP:NBOOK. No objection to heavy pruning. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAs with most awards, having a Pulitzer Prize is notable . Being merely a finalist for one is not. The Loeb awards are specialist awards for business journalism given in multiple categories, and therefore less important than thePulitzer Prize whcih represent the peak of the entire profession of journalism in the US. Previous practice at WP confirms it: Looking at he lists of award winners, I notice that only about 1/5 of the people listed have a WP article, and in almost all cases it's for other accomplishments, such as editor in chief of a major news service.

But I would not have noticed this article were it not almost all of the contents were long sections advocating his views, sourced to himself. It is, for example, not encyclopedic content that he supports fracking, or to give a list of the universities whose athletic policies he has criticized. This is spam, and puffery to increase the number of links. My decision whether to bother nominating borderline people for deletion is the degree of promotionalism and puffery and over-coverage in the article. There are far too many articles in WP about people who really shouldn't behere to try to remove them all. (If they are truly very notable it's another matter--then it can be enough to emove the promotionalism --unless the supporters refuse to let it get removed DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Hydronium^~Hydroxide in keeping the article as Nocera has notable achievements but perhaps pruning it. I think points brought up by DGG should be addressed. Tale.Spin (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Prune the article for superfluous content, and what of encyclopedic value is left? Doesn't seem like much at all would be left. Regardless of whether or not the man is notable, is there anything of value to readers to say about him? The article reads like a list of tangential facts about the person rather than anything that distinguishes him. If it would not be acceptable to publish an article consisting only of some notable person's name and picture with a blank article, I presume It should not be acceptable to publish an article with a notable person's name and picture followed by a lot of unimportant or fluff content. 23:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC). (comment by User:Cameron Brow)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First off, there are dead links and sources that are authored by the subject. Those need to be removed or reduced. Furthermore, there are reliable sources, independent of the subject that establishes notability, which includes the Pulitzer Prize nomination and the other award sources. The subject is clearly a highly respected figure in his industry. It should be a keep for now, but there should be more sources independent of the subject added later on. Multi7001 (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This seems like an obvious keep to me. Nocera has been a noted writer and columnist for decades. He would probably be notable even if he'd only ever been editorial director at Fortune. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certain competitive awards are so notable that even being a finalist makes a subject notable. (The Oscars and Grammys come to mind). I would consider the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism in the same league. WP:ANYBIO includes nominations for this reason. Passes criteria 4c of WP:JOURNALIST per being selected as a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. 4meter4 (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Vigneault

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

Fails WP:MMA critera by having only 1 fight in a top tier promotion. Also fails WP:GNG as main coverage is merely routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 02:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the only fight listed which is a top tier MMA organization is UFC, but WP:NMMA requires at least three fights.
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NMMA. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One top tier fight is not enough to meet WP:NMMA and I don't see the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:09, 25 September 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 11:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Atiya

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are profiles and an appointment notice. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 22:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep. You are only talking about the sources in the article. Have you even checked to see what sources on this subject are available? 195.36.35.251 (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPA account. Just came in this morning. scope_creep^Talk 07:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm an inclusionist, and would like us to have articles for everyone, but until then we don't need a bias towards paid bios for random businessmen. – SJ + 03:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV]. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Withdrawing this AfD. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald H. Chilcote

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

This BLP does not have any secondary reliable sources independent from the subject himself; its citations are entirely limited to a journal of which he has served as managing editor since its founding. There's a lot of information on this page that is entirely unverifiable, and I believe it would be best to delete the page in light of the lack of coverage of this individual. The page feels as if it was written by someone who knows the subject personally, and I believe that this should be deleted per WP:TNT. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As pointed out in the article, "Chilcote is the author of over 200 academic publications, including books, book chapters, and peer-reviewed journal articles, with emphasis on comparative politics, political economy, and development economics." A distinguished 86-year-old scholar who has authored over 30 books in a 60-year career, he is eminently qualified for a Wikipedia entry. In addition to the nine inline cites, there is the "University of California, Irvine Guide to the Ronald H. Chilcote papers". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The nine inline cites come entirely from a journal that he edited, while the the guide is published by his employer. Neither of these are independent sources, and one's employer collecting one's papers doesn't seem to be remarkable whatsoever, especially when Chicotle himself donated them to create the "collection". — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The guide is not published by his employer. He was employed by UC Riverside; the guide is published by UC Irvine, a different university. From description of the contents in the guide, it appears to be unrelated to his university work. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as unprodder. As I wrote in my unprod, "Abu-El-Haj is enough of a reliable source to save this from BLPPROD, and the named professorship appears to pass WP:PROF#C5". The nominator appears to have completely ignored this rationale and failed to even address WP:PROF-based notability, which is not based on the "secondary reliable sources independent from the subject himself" requested in the nomination. On top of which, even the most cursory search of JSTOR for book reviews of his books finds many (starting with [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], etc) so there are many many in-depth published sources about his work and an easy pass of a second notability guideline, WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some decent citations on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Obvious Keep. He holds a named chair in a reputable university (WP:PROF#C5) and he's managing editor of a journal (WP:PROF#C8) before we even start on his output of books and papers. It is a common misunderstanding that these don't count towards a person's notability. If academic papers are widely cited, or if books sell very well and are widely read, then they do contribute (because article citations, and book sales, are an indication independent of the author, and both indicate that the author has wide influence). The article is in desperate need of proper referencing, but there is no reason to believe that the subject is not notable, and referencing can be improved. Elemimele (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the unprod rationale and the passing of WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boneyard, Arizona

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

Search results were overwhelmed by a large aircraft boneyard which happens to be in Arizona, but a few pre-1950s sources mention similar place names. It wasn't clear whether Boneyard Canyon or Boneyard Ranch were at this location, but in any case none of them come close to meeting GNG or even verifying the existence of a populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 01:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to "Arizona Place Names", "The Boneyard, Apache County - In 1880, two men brought cattle from Texas to this high plateau. They froze during the winter and their bleached bones marked the mountain pass for years to come". (not sure whose bones). This is the only Boneyard I find in Apache County and its not a populated place. MB 01:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The aircraft boneyard is a mecca for aviation enthusiasts – I worked with one who would make a pilgrimmage there every year. Our article for that is 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group but nobody calls it that – its common name is the Boneyard. So, the worst case here is that we would redirect to that page to help with navigation. The cattle boneyard seems to get some coverage in works like Arizona Highways and Arizona Place Names so perhaps there's some need for disambiguation too. Deletion would help no-one. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to Aircraft boneyard, there are at least four in Arizona. MB 01:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't the aircraft boneyard...the site of cow death is not notable at all. If your suggestion is to redirect, then why the hell are you saying to "keep"? That would help no one. Yet another junk "article" from User:Gilliam that until yesterday said it was an unincorporated community. Reywas92^Talk 15:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Its not Davis–Monthan Air Force Base. Mztourist (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There's no substance to the article. GenQuest ^"scribble" 05:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antler (cocktail)

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

Non-notable drink, totally unsourced since inception in 2016. I tried searching using various combinations of the name, the sports team, the city, the name of the bar it originated in, even the ingredients. Nothing came up, and "Antler" brings up a lot of false-positives for unrelated establishments like restaurants and hotels. Estheim (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: So unofficial a cocktail for the Bucks that I can't find any sources linking the cocktail to them. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 19 September 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. Enough sources have been presented to show that the article is capable of being expanded well beyond its current stub. I strongly suggest doing that before considering a merge. The expanded page may well be unsuitable to merge for UNDUE concerns. SpinningSpark 14:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Granby Telephone & Telegraph

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

Fairly fails to meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Should be merged with Otelco Asketbouncer (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See this reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Having seen Eastmain's source (and he hasn't actually proffered a ground upon which to keep, valid or otherwise), I'm entirely underwhelmed. CORPDEPTH still applies, MULTSOURCES still applies, and WP:ORG and WP:GEOSCOPE certainly applies. A valedictory for the small town telephone exchange from the local paper scarcely meets notability standards, especially given the sub-stub of an article.
Speaking of a merger, there's nothing TO merge that isn't already in the other article. Ravenswing 21:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company is discussed in this historical book and this historical book on Granby by reputable academic publishers, and its notable for being one of the few surviving small telephone companies in the United States as stated in the first source. While not exactly independent, this United States Congress report could be used to source and expand content as well. Ultimately, there's enough here to establish SIGCOV and the company's interest to historians writing on the city of Granby is clear.4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~Delete or Merge~~ as per noms suggestion. Based on the sources found to date and my own searching, I cannot find any references that satisfy the criteria for establishing notability. ~~The two books mentioned by 4meter4 above are self-published and therefore fail as they are not reliable sources.~~ The reference by Eastmain (as noted by Ravenswing) fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND as most of the info is provided by a company employee, no indication of any "Independent Content". Topic therefore fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing Neither source is self published. Both books are published by Arcadia Publishing which is widely respected for its publications of reliable local histories and academic textbooks. Both sources are high quality reference works published by a respected academic publisher and constitute independent and significant coverage. 4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again Arcadia bought a number of companies, some of which were self-publishing or self-distributing companies but Arcadia isn't. Thanks for the correction 4meter4. I don't believe the books do anything other than confirm the existence of the telephone company and I've modified my !vote to merge instead. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is proposing merger rather than deletion but the proposed target would not be an improvement. There are plenty of sources, as noted noted above and so WP:ATD seems quite feasible and preferable, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 13:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a clear consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of living former members of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom

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

Oops, I'd have sworn I already nominated this. Must have missed it. Anyway, since I forgot, and since I'm lazy; per the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living former members of the United States Cabinet and every other trivial combination of "characteristic X" and "living person". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and all the other living Afd's. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator tells us that they are lazy and so we can be reasonably sure that WP:BEFORE has not been done and alternatives to deletion considered. There doesn't seem to be a separate master list of cabinet ministers and so getting this information would require picking through many other pages. The list therefore fulfils a sensible purpose of indexing and navigation per WP:LISTPURP. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What ATD are you proposing? pburka (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I favour improving the page per policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." I'd start by consolidating the entries to remove duplication and making it a single sortable table. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I was lazy in not bothering to write out an in-depth rationale (since the reasons for deletion are obvious to those who have been following the recent similar nominations). Not in not trying to look for sources to establish LISTN. Even if I hadn't done so, the simplest way, anyway, for you to convert your ad hominem into a proper keep argument would be, you know, to actually find such sources instead of deflecting. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is up to the nominator to present and make a case for action. If they can't be bothered then they can't expect to convince. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the exact same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living former United Kingdom MPs. Ajf773 (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew. -GorgonaJS (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just like all the other lists of living, former politicians. Politicians are notable, but the fact that this subset is retired and not dead is a trivial cross categorization and the list doesn't satisfy WP:LISTN or WP:LISTPURP. There's no way to improve it as the topic is fundamentally non-encyclopedic. pburka (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the nomination in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living former members of the United States Cabinet makes a persuasive argument. Struggling to see how this meets WP:LISTN and is quite a convoluted cross-categorisation that requires a great deal of WP:SYNTH to formulate. The list also doesn't really make sense eg Phillip Hammond being listed despite currently being Chancellor of the Exchequer. Pure listcruft. I would also ask the closer not to overlook the WP:PA in this discussion which are becoming far too common from some editors. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: List is also woefully incomplete and given how cabinet shuffles are very common in the UK, this seems indiscriminate.2601:241:300:B610:9B5:5BBE:9803:FD47 (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Chancellor_of_the_Exchequer#List_of_Chancellors_of_the_Exchequer, Foreign Secretary, Secretary of State for Justice, and others have lifespans on the individuals. That's welcome to be added to others, but when these and pages like Third Blair ministry already provide "a sensible purpose of indexing and navigation", there's no basis for keeping this that's an excessive cross-categorization. Reywas92^Talk 14:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would fully support the arguments for deletion made above, and also note that this list has not really been maintained and also seems a bit inconsistent about duplicating information. In general while the earliest living cabinet minister might be of note, I don't think a list is the way to do this on Wikipedia. To be honest if someone wants to know if a former cabinet minister is still alive, searching for their article seems the obvious way to it. Dunarc (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised to learn that everyone who served in Theresa May's cabinet is dead. Someone ought to look into that. pburka (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that raises a legitimate issue about the problems if a page like this is not well maintained - OK nobody is going to think that a member of a cabinet in a ministry which ended just over two years ago is dead, but there living are people missing from the first Cameron Cabinet (which started over a decade ago) like David Laws which could cause confusion for anybody relying on the list. The fact the list after 2010 is so poor makes me think editors don't see it as important enough to put work into. Dunarc (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree. I think almost all lists of living people are high risk for BLP issues. Claiming someone is living (or, by omission, dead) without any possibility of a citation is obviously problematic. pburka (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The intersection of "has held public office X" and "is still alive" is to my eye self-evidently a WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, and as such WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. Of all possible parameters to list this group of people by, being alive is certainly one of them – but so is being born on a Wednesday. It's also rather embarrassing how poorly maintained this list is, as noted above—even if there had been no other reasons for deletion, that would in my opinion have been sufficient reason to at least move the article to WP:Draftspace until that glaring issue had been addressed. TompaDompa (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or, Andrew, perhaps you could userfy this and make it into the comprehensive list of cabinet ministers you mention. There is no clear value in distinguishing between living and dead ones here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is also a similar article Living former cabinet members of the Netherlands.2601:241:300:B610:196B:664B:339B:F670 (talk) 05:32, 25 September 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. Withdrawn by nominator. Multiple years of coverage by reliable sources precludes WP:BLP1E argument. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nightbirde

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

Non-notable singer and a case, however tragic, of WP:BLP1E. She is notable for a single performance on an American reality contest show. She gave the performance while suffering with cancer; despite having a guaranteed place on the show, had to drop out. All very sad, all very compelling reality television I'm sure, but this is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. As the reality show itself is not a reliable source, she has received no significant coverage in independent sources. I also want to draw editor's attention to the fact that many of the cited sources are NBC affiliates. Because the show is an NBC show, these are ads disguised as news; only these sources contain her basic biographical details. While we would normally treat the NBC affiliates are independent, secondary sources, I feel we are constrained to not do so in this case for the purpose of establishing notability. To explain why WP:PROD is inappropriate: User:137.27.65.235 and User:GUtt01 are fiercely duking out a dispute over the article title over on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § IP 137.27.65.235 - Behaviour issue, and are likely to challenge a PROD. We need a formal AfD consensus. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a case of WP:BLP1E. Sadly an unfortunate waste of time for the two editors that engaged in the massive argument if this gets deleted, but this just isn't a notable enough person. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided below and since article was updated/expanded. Original neutral nomination: There are other contestants on various shows less notable than her with articles from past seasons that this applies to. I checked around and see there are more things to add to her article but not sure the sources are reliable enough to expand it. Regardless, she is notable enough to include on AGT16's article whether it links to an/her article or not. If deleted, her song should be added to AGT S:16. My issue with GUtt01 was removing her name and changing the link to her article in the past. Thank you! 137.27.65.235 (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yet if any one thing makes her stand out in a world of nearly 8 billion people, it is her stunning spirit and positive attitude while facing what her doctors say is a 2% chance of survival.

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

The subject was notable before she appeared on season 16 of America's Got Talent in 2021. She received coverage in 2012, 2013, and 2019 under the names Nightbirde, Jane Marczewski, and Jane Claudio. She has received significant coverage in numerous reliable sources in 2021 after her appearance on America's Got Talent. The sources include international sources like the South China Morning Post and the Manilla Bulletin.

Sources published before 2021

Sources published before 2021

Wells, Brent (2012-11-12). "Focus On: Singer/songwriter Jane Marczewski". The News & Advance. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
The article notes: "Jane Marczewski penned her first song lyrics at the tender age of 6, after her mother got stumped while writing a tune about the Christmas star for a local church production. ... says the Ohio native, now 21. ... Marczewski and her three siblings were no strangers to music growing up, and could get their hands on just about any instrument needed for an aspiring musician’s quest for songwriting dominance. ... But that hasn’t stopped the Liberty University senior from trying. With the release of her three-song EP earlier this year, the singer/guitarist/pianist set out to examine the forces that she says have the ability to enact change, both admirable and fleeting."
Wells, Brent (2013-05-29). "Love hurts: Singer/songwriter Jane Marczewski opens up on latest EP". The News & Advance. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
The article notes: "When I caught up with local singer/songwriter Jane Marczewski last November, she was raising money through a Kickstarter campaign to fund the recording of her new EP, "Ocean&Sky." ... After spending a week in December laying down tracks for "Ocean&Sky" at a studio in her native Ohio, the 22-year-old Liberty grad emerged with a collection of songs that showcase her tendencies toward fusing folk idioms, pop sensibilities and the deeply pensive admissions she incorporates into her compositions."
Gillis, Casey (2019-03-30). "Musician Jane Claudio, after beating cancer, will return to the stage for Lynchburg show". The News & Advance. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
The article notes: ""What a wild story this is,” musician and poet Jane Claudio writes in the opening line of her poem, “White Stag.” ... Claudio, who performed here under her maiden name, Jane Marczewski, while a student at Liberty University from 2009 to 2013, was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2017. Her diagnosis, and eventual recovery, became part of a larger journey she began in Lynchburg, where she’ll return Saturday to open for Tori Kelly at the Vines Center, performing under her new stage name, Nightbirde."
Ramsey, Suzanne (2019-07-01). "The Resurrection of Jane". Lynchburg Living. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
The article notes: "On Tuesdays, Claudio helps out with a Bible study and life skills classes and sometimes sings for the inmates. “It’s just a little bit draining,” she said. “These women’s stories are a lot to hear. That’s where I’m coming from.” Claudio—Jane Marczewski when she lived in Lynchburg—has a story of her own. It’s one that started in 2009 at Liberty University, where she confessed she was “never quite good enough to make it on any of the music teams,” and came full circle when she opened for Grammy winner Tori Kelly at Liberty’s Vines Center on April 6. ... So, toward the end of 2014, Claudio made a decision: She’d go home to Ohio for a couple months and then it was Music City or bust. Once at home, however, she met and fell in love with fellow musician Jeremy Claudio and two months stretched into nearly a year. They married and moved to Nashville together in 2015."
Menard, Drew (2019-06-12). "Taking Flight: Alumna Musician Jane "Nightbirde" Claudio on Her Rebirth After Beating Cancer". Liberty Journal. Liberty University. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
The article notes: "Many musicians go through an evolution at some point, a natural change over time as they mature with their art. But 2013 Liberty University alumna Jane (Marczewski) Claudio, who performs as Nightbirde, describes her artistic shift as a resurrection. ... In July 2018, Claudio was declared cancer-free. With a renewed perspective, she went back to writing music. In March, she dropped her first single as Nightbirde, “Girl in a Bubble.”"
Bharath, Deepa (2020-07-24). "Hundreds gather in Huntington Beach to be baptized with cold dunk in the ocean. 'I felt like I was washing off my past. I left all that pain in the water and came back as a new person,' says a cancer patient recently separated from her husband". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
This article has a short mention of the subject. The article notes: "Jane Marczewski of Long Beach said she heard about it on Instagram. Marczewski recently moved to Southern California from Nashville after she was diagnosed with breast cancer and was given three to six months to live. “My husband left me shortly after that and I was devastated,” she said. Marczewski says she “miraculously” became cancer-free just four months after going through alternative treatments combined with a mild dose of chemotherapy."
Castel, Gregory (2019-03-26). "Meet Nightbirde, the "Girl in a Bubble"". Earmilk. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
The article notes: "Singer-songwriter Jane Claudio, 28, is one of Nashville's newer acts. A young woman with a rollercoaster story filled with trial and bravery, Claudio has had to overcome great lows to become who she is today. She has evolved sonically over the years into an electro-pop palette, colorizing her folky beginnings with a wave of tasteful synth and ambitious post-modern swells. It's almost like Lorde meets Daft Punk with a smidgen of Taylor Swift."
Dulava, Valeria (2020-08-21). "After a tumultuous year, Nightbirde finally declares "IT'S OK" in an electrifying follow-up to her debut". Earmilk. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
The article notes: "While "Girl In a Bubble" was written largely as an emotional response to her first remission, "IT'S OK" aims to put as much distance between her and the past year as possible—"I blow through yellow lights and don't look back at all." Letting her voice play for the first time in months, she stands by calmly as it carefully scopes out its new neon colored surroundings, teasing the sparkling synths with quick pace changes and blithe commentary."

Sources published after 2021

Sources published after 2021

Goh, Alvin (2021-08-06). "Nightbirde is dropping out of America's Got Talent due to cancer, but she still hopes to 'show people what is possible' – interview". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
The article notes: "If there’s anyone that exemplifies beauty both inside and out, it’s Nightbirde. The singer, born Jane Marczewski, flew onto the world’s radar when she sang about her struggle with cancer on season 16 of America’s Got Talent. ... Marczewski has certainly shown ample bravery in her life so far. The 30-year-old singer-songwriter was first diagnosed with cancer in 2017, which was treated and pronounced medically cleared. By early January 2020, however, she was told that her cancer had returned and spread to her liver, lungs and spine. Two weeks after that, her husband asked for a divorce, which pushed things to the breaking point for her."
Keegan, Kayla (2021-08-05). "Nightbirde Breaks Her Silence After 'AGT' Exit and Details Her "Devastating" Month". Good Housekeeping. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
The article notes: "After announcing her exit from America's Got Talent season 16 to focus on her health, Jane Marczewski, a.k.a. Nightbirde, appeared on CNN's Cuomo Prime Time to give fans an update on how she's doing now."
Ortiz, Andi (2021-08-05). "'America's Got Talent' Standout Nightbirde Gives Health Update After Withdrawing: 'My Liver Right Now Is Mostly Cancer'". TheWrap. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
The article notes: "On Wednesday night, Nightbirde appeared on CNN with Chris Cuomo, revealing a bit more specifics regarding her condition. But she also doubled down on her message of optimism."
Neller, Wayne (2021-07-21). "It's OK". Hampshire Review. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
The article notes: "Just about a month ago Singer Jane Marczewski performed on the TV show “America’s Got Talent.” Her message has taken the Internet by storm. Jane goes by the stage name of Nightbirde. Her original song, “It’s OK,” tells her personal story of a 30-year-old with cancer and only a 2 percent chance of survival. ... Like Nightbirde, how many of us have tried to run away from reality only to discover that reality is tenacious and hanging on to our shirttail the entire time?"
Melas, Chloe (2021-08-03). "'America's Got Talent' contestant departs show due to cancer battle". CNN. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
The article notes: ""America's Got Talent" star Jane Marczewski has withdrawn from the competition due to health issues as she battles cancer. "America's Got Talent" star Jane Marczewski has withdrawn from the competition due to health issues as she battles cancer."
Kingsu-Cheng, Jane (2021-06-11). "AGT golden buzzer's Nightbirde, on toxic relationships and letting go". Manila Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
The article notse: "But Jane did get married—to a fellow musician Jeremy Claudio back in 2015. They had a lovely intimate wedding in an old building from the 1920s in Newark, Ohio."
Henderson, Cydney (2012-09-16). "Nightbirde says she's 'crying' after 'AGT' finale: Not 'how the story was supposed to go'". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
Mizoguchi, Karen (2021-09-16). "AGT's Nightbirde Speaks Out During Finale After Exiting amid Cancer Battle: 'Raging and Crying'". People. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
Johnson, Lottie Elizabeth (2021-08-03). "'I'll be better soon': Inspiring singer on 'AGT' leaves show as cancer takes 'a turn for the worse'". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
Seemayer, Zach (2021-08-02). "'AGT' Golden Buzzer Singer Nightbirde Drops Out of Competition to Focus on Her Cancer Battle". Entertainment Tonight. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
Ramos, Neil (2021-06-10). "Cancer patient stuns 'AGT' with touching performance". Manila Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
Crook, Chris (2021-08-02). "Zanesville's Nightbirde drops out of America's Got Talent as health worsens". Times Recorder. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
Mallett, Kent (2021-06-09). "'I'm there to give people a gift.' Zanesville singer Nightbirde wows America's Got Talent". The Advocate. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
Aten, Jason (2021-06-11). "With 14 Words, a 30-Year-Old Singer Battling Cancer Just Reminded Everyone What Success Looks Like. Even when life is hard, you still have a choice". Inc. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Nightbirde (known as Jane Marczewski and previously as Jane Claudio) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:BLP1E. This article is about a person who had a significant role in a non-significant event, which was a single audition episode of America's Got Talent. She performed only once and did not return to the show to perform in the quarterfinals. She has a sad story, but not a unique or encyclopedically significant one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on reading WP:BLP1E that a few people here put forward in reasoning. I think what we have found is possibly a problem with talent show programs - people may sometimes create articles for people who come on for one appearance, without considering waiting to see if they are involved in more than just that program. Furthermore, this article is becoming a like a lightning rod, and I don't think the dispute between myself and the IP will end unless either we come to an agreement, or the cause of the issue goes away.GUtt01 (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I might agree to a Redirect to AGT:S16 article if she should pass away - It would be suitable for coverage in that article, under a section regarding incidents. If so, there would notable coverage about how she felt regarding her withdrawal, and on Simon Cowell's opinion on the matter, prior to the possible event. If not agreeable with others, then fair enough. GUtt01 (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on why WP:BLP1E does not apply: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event (WP:BLP1E) says:
Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. ...
3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. ...
Nightbirde does not meet WP:BLP1E because she does not meet the clause "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event". She received substantial coverage in The News & Advance in 2012, 2013, and 2019, in Earmilk in 2019 and 2020. She also received coverage in the Lynchburg Living and the Liberty Journal in 2019. The articles discuss her career (including her extended play and her single) and her personal life. She was already notable before her appearance on season 16 of America's Got Talent in 2021. Her appearance led to her receiving substantial media coverage, including in the international sources the South China Morning Post and the Manila Bulletin.
Regarding "Furthermore, this article is becoming a like a lightning rod, and I don't think the dispute between myself and the IP will end unless either we come to an agreement, or the cause of the issue goes away." – editorial disputes over the article should have no bearing on whether the article is retained.
Cunard (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps we might see whether the subject of the article fits one of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO or WP:REALITYSINGER, if WP:BLP1E is not sufficient an argument for this AfD per Cunard's argument? GUtt01 (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, which says a musician "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria" including "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself".
WP:REALITYSINGER says, "Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable." The guideline does not support deletion or redirection of this article since the subject was already notable prior to her appearance on the reality television series. Cunard (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notable project: Leonard Knight: A Man & His Mountain (provided music in this film) 137.27.65.235 (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I used sources provided by Cunard to expand the article; her career received coverage for years before her appearance on the America's Got Talent audition, and together with the explosion of coverage after the audition and her withdrawal from the show, there is no doubt she meets GNG, plus there is enough material on her life, which isn't always the case with performers. In addition to Nightbirde and Jane Marczewski, she has performed as Jane Claudio, so there may be more to be found by searching under that name. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw this nomination based on research done by Yngvadottir/Cunard. Should the community feel discussion ought to continue, consider my !vote changed to neutral. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 17:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can this be closed and the template removed from Nightbirde's article? Thanks! 137.27.65.235 (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you delete this page? For obvious reasons her career was cut very short. There will be no more details other than a death notice. She was beautiful, talented, she deserves a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oregrozmar (talk • contribs) 03:52, 25 September 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 13:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foulk Woods, Delaware

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

Since someone wanted to argue out this non-notable subdivision, here we are. I'm sure we'll find the same sort of local paper coverage, but since there's no claim to notability in the article, unless someone can come up with one, it's no different from the hundreds already deleted. Mangoe (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV such as this this, this, and this. Whether or not its local doesn't matter. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually it does. The first two are routine real estate section material that get published everywhere; the third is a press release from the time of the subdivision's construction, and the fourth is a name drop. This is all the stuff of ordinary local coverage and is hardly significant, and there's still no claim to notability, because it's just one of a hundred Wilmington/Newark/New Castle ssubdivisions. Mangoe (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What absolutely does not matter (totally irrelevant) is that it's one of a hundred hundred Wilmington/Newark/New Castle ssubdivisions. Djflem (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: Do you intend to expand the article with above non-trivial references (which appear to have been knowingly mischaracterised)? Djflem (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll expand the article soon, using the sources above and other articles in Newspapers.com. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem: I tried to expand the article in this edit. You may need to clean it up as I'm not familiar with the guidelines for communities. Additional coverage that I found in my search includes this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this, clearly passing GNG (Though I'm sure someone will call it all "just routine"). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BeanieFan11. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GEOLAND #2: "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it."

This location is not notable in accordance with the GNG.
It has only trivial coverage.

How does the subject of this article meet WP:GNG? Suppose that the subject was a person or a corporation. Would it be notable enough for an article? If a person was the subject of a puff piece in the paper does that make them notable? I think not. Why are we applying a different standard of notability to neighborhoods? What makes the subject of this article notable - that is different from other typical neighborhoods? How will this article be expanded in the future to be different from any other development?

Looking at Foulk Woods specifically, GBooks has various trivial hits, a 1949 USGS bulletin lists it as a "suburban development". I found nothing in GBooks that indicates notability. Newspapers.com has trivial coverage for a typical suburban development, I found no articles that indicate notability.

Recently, it seems that with Geography AfDs, there has been an increase of Keep votes. As a community, how will we reach consensus on these AfDs? New opinions are welcome. Should WP:GEOLAND be updated? If we can't reach consensus here, then updating the policy could be difficult. I encourage editors to review WP:GNG, WP:GEOLAND and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography. Cxbrx (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability certainly does not require "different from" - "same as", "just like" are not standards used on Wikipedia and are simply Wikipedia:PPOV. More participation? Good thing, no? More keep !votes is irrelevant; (is that comment on it being good or bad?). That could come from the fact there has been a lack of adequate Wikipedia:BEFORE with the nominations and lack or research by delete !voters, as has been the case with many recent AFDS. Djflem (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a difference of a opinion about notability. Is every tree in a forest notable, or is the forest notable? Etc. I've found that Mangoe's WP:BEFORE to be quite good, though I believe in the past I believe I have not always agreed with them. In general, I've spent quite a bit of effort trying researching Geography AfDs, my standard is that I like to find at least one WP:RS non-trivial source about the location, two is even better. I do feel that having a post office helps indicate notability, but I'm pretty much alone in this opinion. With this article, I'm just not sure what else will be added to the article to improve it? In other articles, I've seen additions (Green Meadow, Delaware, Edenridge, Delaware) by yourself and other editors about the names of the builders etc., and though find these to be somewhat WP:MILL, at least the article has been improved. It seems that there are plenty of editors that would prefer to keep these articles, so they will stay for the time being. I don't think more keep !votes is good or bad, I think that there is a set of editors who are more inclined to !vote keep than there were in the past. What strikes me is that amount of time people put in to some of the AfDs (Landenberg Junction, Delaware), but the article remains basically unchanged. I do feel that editors like Mangoe, Hog Farm, Reywas92, Dlthewave and others have done a lot in cleaning up mass-produced GNIS junk articles, by editors like Carlossuarez46, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive830#Carlossuarez46_mass-creating_articles. In looking at Geo AfDs in the distant past, it seems like there were more !vote keeps. I'm happy to let the pendulum swing the other way towards !vote keep for awhile. I'm happy to see all the Geo AfDs get attention even if I don't necessary agree with the results and I'm probably going to move on to other wiki tasks for the time being. I may jump in on Geo AfDs that have not gotten much attention and have been relisted. Cxbrx (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've certainly appreciated your research on these AfDs (and it's a pretty thankless task). I think the pendulum is mostly being swung by people now doing more in-depth research (specifically in old newspapers), and actual articles springing up at the site of an AfD (rather than "it's good" / "it sucks" arguments). jp×g 23:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid argument in AFD discussions. It certainly should not be for nominations, as is the case here: "it's no different from the hundreds already deleted". GEOLAND say: Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. If there's a problem with that, no one is required to participate (and certainly not nominate). Djflem (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS:@Cxbrx: To avoid confusion, this is not a direct response to above, but a general comment.Djflem (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG and GEOLAND, per the sources from BeanieFan11. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment This and the other recent AfDs on Wilmington's suburban developments are all being driven by a novel attempt at a guideline: that all neighborhoods of major cities are notable because their names appear in articles in those city's papers. People keep arguing based on articles in the main Wilmington paper(s) (and in this timeframe they were actually only a single paper with, initially, a morning and an evening edition), but looking at the articles in question, most of them are simply name drops to locate a person or an event, and the ones that look like actual coverage are either notices that something was being built, back in the days when that kind of coverage was routine, or equally routine real estate pages write-ups that every neighborhood gets in order to sell houses there. I just don't see it satisfying WP:GNG, but in any case the numerous guidelines limiting WP coverage of local politicians and the like are evidence that simplyl appearing in the papers from time to time isn't enough. Mangoe (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) is a failed proposal. Wikipedia:5P1: Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. (The wording was changed by the revision made at 02:11 on 12 Feb 2013. The reference to gazeteers appears to have been introduced on 17 November 2008.) Djflem (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I see the merit of arguments made to delete. The nominated revision and the current revision are miles apart; there's now a whopping fourteen references, many of which articles specifically about this place. Whether the place has inherent notability shouldn't matter if there's significant coverage. jp×g 23:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV Djflem (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11.4meter4 (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

X–Y–Z matrix

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

An uncited stub since its creation in 2006. For the most part the term "x-y-z matrix" only appears on mirrors of Wikipedia or in unrelated uses such as XYZ color space or usual 2d matrices transforming a vector whose entries are x, y, z. I found two exceptions,1, 2, which are very brief and confusing. My best guess is that this article is intending to describe an Array data type with 3 indices, but there's no evidence that the term is in common use in that sense. Apocheir (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Apocheir (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The usual names for this object are hypermatrix or tensor (both of which admit higher-dimensional analogues). Unfortunately the most concrete discussion of such things on Wikipedia seems to be at Tensor#As_multidimensional_arrays, which is damn near incomprehensible. (Multilinear_map and Array data type are also relevant, I guess.) There's no substance in this article to merge. The figure is a nice idea but basically unreadable (at least by me). So we have, basically, a made-up term with no citations and no usable content. --JBL (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is the classical maths dilemma of Wikipedia. We have an article on tensors that no one can understand unless they already know the subject matter (which seriously undermines the point of having the article). But so far as I know, as a non-mathematician, a tensor doesn't have to be a multi-dimensional matrix, and not all multi-dimensional matrices are tensors?? We have hyper-matrix redirecting to tensor, but another article altogether, Array_data_structure talking about matrices with more than two dimensions. It seems a bit of a mess. It would be lovely if someone could write a comprehensible overview-article on 3-dimensional matrices and their uses. In any case, the current article contains no useful information, and it isn't the natural name for the overview-article I'd like to see. Elemimele (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that multidimensional matrices and tensors are different things. Poiu45 (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject matter is legitimate, but the name is not, and there's no useful content for merging. The name people actually use for this thing is just tensor. Tercer (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a name that anyone actually uses for three-dimensional arrays or tensors represented by them. None of the content is worth merging. XOR'easter (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per other responses. Concept is already described in other articles, and neither scholarly nor popular sources appear to talk about the subject as a standalone mathematical concept. No content worth merging. AviationFreak💬 18:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 03:45, 26 September 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El ultimo ke zierre

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

The band seem to have an extensive discography which is why I thought they would satisfy WP:NBAND, but during WP:BEFORE, I could find no WP:RS discussing their career in detail. I thought I'd bring it to AfD to see if there is anything I'm missing. – DarkGlow • 14:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An extensive discography is not a sign of notability. Many underground punk/grindcore bands have lots of releases, but that doesn't make them notable since most of the time, nobody wrote a review of said albums; they are available in stores and on streaming media, they have some database entries, they can be downloaded from somewhere, you can buy the merch...however, none of those are reliable sites and they cannot be used in WP articles. So an extensive discography does not make a band/musician notable. On the case of this band, they don't seem very notable, but I might be wrong. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment reply Thanks for the clarification for anyone that's unsure, but I'm aware of that. I wouldn't be arguing for someone's notability in an AfD nomination lol, I was just stating that I expected them to pass NBAND with RS but they don't, hence the nom. – DarkGlow • 20:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The French language wikipedia article has several sources with inline citations that could possibly indicate that the band meets NBAND and/or GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added the citations from the French language Wikipedia article mentioned by 4meter4. I think that notability is now demonstrated. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the references, the last one is routine coverage which could just as well be a press release (looks like it, although it is not identified as such); the one before is largely based on an interview; and the first one is also based on statements from the promoter of the launch of the groups ultimate album. So none of these are enough to meet GNG. It might be possible that this group got coverage from local off-line sources which could amount to actual GNG, but given that the band has released multiple albums in the past twenty years (so, yeah, right in the middle of the Internet era, in Spain, a European country...), it does not bode well that nothing convincing has so far been found. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They've stuck it out for many years but it appears that they simply haven't received any reliable coverage. As the last voter said, the recently-added sources are a nice try but they're just minor promo announcements. Unless the sources are really deep in hardcopy books and newspapers, I can find no in-depth analytical articles on the band or reliable reviews of any of their albums. Otherwise they're only visible in the usual streaming and retail services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, for failing WP:NBAND. A discography, however extensive, doesn't meet any of the criteria listed. Ifnord (talk) 03:49, 27 September 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. G12 copyvio per HighKing. Both the English and the original Italian articles were created in one hit rather than slowly evolving. Additiionally, this may well be a purely promotional creation. The product is for sale at the farinabono.ch website and the earliest version of the English article gives that as the Official Site. For the record, I was inclined to keep this had it not been for the copyvio, so there is no obstacle to its recreation as a properly written article. SpinningSpark 14:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Farina bona

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. Possible ATD would be merge/redirect or redirect to Onsernone but I'm not sure it is significant enough to make the article. Boleyn (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Farina bona is recognized as a "Swiss culinary heritage": https://www.patrimoineculinaire.ch/Prodotti?text=Farina+B%C3%B3na&canton=&categorie=#455 --Hadi (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems to be a well known food that extends back into antiquity. In looking at google books I got a lot of hits with cookbook recipes using it (mainly in Italian and Swiss but also French and Russian), farina bona ice cream, medieval recipes, etc. Even Hippocrates mentioned it briefly. But I couldn't find any RS just talking about it directly as a product/ history. Only brief mentions. Not sure what to think.4meter4 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based (1) on the feeling that a lot of half-decent sources writing at least a bit on the subject adds up to the same sort of weight as two sources in depth (I know this is bad arithmetic); (2) on the sheer quantity of Google hits; and (3) on the text: the text refers to historical sources and testimonies, and is either a stupendously good bit of Original Research, or more likely, an article pieced together from decent sources which unfortunately the writer failed to cite. We should delete the incorrigibly non-notable, not the uncontroversial-probably-true-but-not-properly-cited; this latter should be tagged as needing references. Elemimele (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Farina bona is a corn (maize) flour, so any use in the context of Hippocrates or before the 1500s is probably unrelated, and Swiss cuisine suggests corn might not have become a staple before the 1800s -- which is consistent with [47]. Happy with redirection and brief coverage as proposed. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this was nominated for deletion less than 6 minutes after the nomination of another article. Both nominations used the automated Twinkle suite. The suggestion that the intervening 5 minutes was enough time to conduct WP:BEFORE for topic with a history "that extends back into antiquity", is laughable. So keep and close as out of process, or keep because it meets our inclusion criteria. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per G12 WP:COPYVIO. This article was created in December 2009 and is based on this website's contents also in English language which predate this article. Everything in the article originates from that website and the timing suggests this article was created to promote that business. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: how do we know that the contents of that site predate the addition of our article? Note that the Italian is an almost verbatim copy of Italian Wikipedia's version as of 2008, while the web archives of the other page date to 2010 only, which means they could well have copied it-wiki. It would be good to know for sure, though. — Amakuru (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru good point but the 2008 Italian wiki page shows a link to this web site which is of the same name but ".ch" and which was in existence in 2007. Although the "Curiosita" page hasn't been archived from 2007, it existed and given the lack of updates to the website in general, my opinion is that this article is a clear copyvio. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability and the years that keep passing by without a reference indicate to me that none are forthcoming. Ifnord (talk) 03:47, 27 September 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flash and Dash

AfDs for this article:

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Last AfD was closed as no consensus - little participation but good points made. Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any RS on this topic. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. There's been plenty of time since the last AfD to provide a claim to notability, no evidence any exists. Ifnord (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I will draftify this on request if someone comes forward to work on it SpinningSpark 14:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ecologi

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

Much as I'd like to see an article here, we are shy at least one further good source before notability can be asserted. The only solid coverage I can find is the given BBC article; the second current ref is an in-house press release that can be found reprinted, unmodified, in a dozen aggregators. I think we'd be just about good with one other piece of unaffiliated in-depth coverage, but no dice so far. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Elmidae: I added some references, and I think notability is now shown. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. You are not making this easy. None of these is a solid piece of independent reporting about the org; I'm seeing two more press releases, one listing, three passing mentions and two unrelated articles. (In fact I went ahead and removed the "controversies" sentence along with the those latter two - that really is an editorial addition, with no connection to the article subject.) I'd like to leave this open for further comments. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete. Ultimately I agree with Elmidae's source analysis. There isn't enough here to pass WP:SIGCOV or WP:NCORP. However, it's a young company and we are really only one quality source away from meeting GNG. I would consider draftifying per WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as per WP:ATD if there's someone to take it on or Delete. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:48, 20 September 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Men Walking (film)

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF, no other indication of notability by WP:NFO BOVINEBOY2008 15:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep has a full review at Dread Central here. There are other reviews listed at the external reviews section at imdb but haven't checked them out yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks enough significant coverage to meet WP:NF or WP:SIGCOV. One review in a relatively minot publication isn't enough, and IMDB is not reliable enough to count.4meter4 (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per above, though I will tag it with one citation. Qwerfjkl talk 19:31, 27 September 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Dunford Wood

AfDs for this article:

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

This is partly a procedural nomination. The person exists. He is a chef, but all - or almost all - of the references do not even mention his name. When you do a Google search on his name, you get very little of any value. Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, only one reference mentions this chef. General notability is not satisfied here. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is potentially some quality RS in google books: most notably this French language book where there is a profile of him: [48]. Snippet views/ blocked pages prevent getting a closer look at what looks the most promising. (such as [49]; [50]; My university library search yielded some of his recipes in The Independent and The Guardian, and I did find some interviews in culinary magazines, but we usually don't consider that independent enough to count towards RS at AFD. His 2017 cookbook Modern British Food: Recipes from Parlour may have reviews somewhere to count towards notability. Basically, I found a few good leads but nothing that definitely establishes notability. Not convinced yet that there isn't RS out there to be confident in a delete vote either.4meter4 (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think he's notable, the French book mentioned is more like a travel guide, the author picks favorite things and writes a bit about them. The rest don't seem more important. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 26 September 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 13:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Association of American Schools in Central America

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

School districts are generally notable, and this seems like kind of an equivalent. However, I couldn't find evidence of meeting WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Thia has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need of a separate article for this association for now. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Was a WP:BEFORE search done? In just looking through google books it seems like there is enough RS to possibly pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. There is some quality RS within education policy literature and some coverage elsewhere. Not sure about the independence of the last source, but it is published by another party. See:

Fayad, Juan David ; Yoshida, Roland K (March 2014). "Making Mission Statements Operational: Perceptions of Principals from Tri-Association Schools". Journal of School Leadership. 24 (2): 336–356.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Ledger, Susan, Lesley Vidovich, and Tom O’Donoghue (2014). "The Context". Global to Local Curriculum Policy Processes: Policy Implications of Research in Education. Springer International. pp. 17–36.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Mott, Theron J. (2012). The American Sponsored Overseas School Headship: Two Decades of Change and the Road Ahead (PhD). Lehigh University.
Wendy Bosberry-Scott (ed.). The John Catt Guide to International Schools 2010/11. John Catt Educational, Limited. p. 519. ISBN 9781904724827.

Based on High King's analysis below; changing to delete.4meter4 (talk) 15:32, 21 September 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, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Honduras-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - was WP:BEFORE conducted? Almost certainly not! This nomination was launched less than 60 seconds after an edit to an unrelated article. Accepting that anyone could possibly have considered the availability of sources in that time is beyond common sense. Besides which, there seem to be plenty of available sources and the ones listed above would seem to suggest the subject meets WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an organization so WP:NCORP applies, not GNG. With regard to the commentary about WP:BEFORE - people really need to WP:AGF, the nominator may have conducted WP:BEFORE sometime in the past, perhaps last week and not necessarily just before this AfD. As to the references ... I've read them. None - not a single one - meets WP:NCORP (and makes me wonder how anyone who read the references could even say they met GNG for that matter) as follows:
- "Making Mission Statements Operational: Perceptions of Principals from Tri-Association Schools" doesn't even mention the topic organization (even though they are members of the Tri-Association) much less have WP:CORPDEPTH in-depth information
- "Global to Local Curriculum Policy Processes: Policy Implications of Research in Education" gets a mention in passing on page 33. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- "The American Sponsored Overseas School Headship: Two Decades of Change and the Road Ahead" gets a mention in passing on page 15. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- John Catt Guide to International Schools 2010/11 contains a profile which contains information from the organization's website with no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND.

Based on the the above references and my own unsuccessful searching, I cannot locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my vote on the basis of HighKing's more detailed analysis of sources. As for AGF, the barest assessment of this nominator's edits and track record is enough to confirm that it is highly unlikely that WP:BEFORE was conducted at some stage in the past, especially given that WP:BEFORE requires much more than a quick google search. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with High King's analysis of available sourcing Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 24 September 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 11:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hiew

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

It exists, but doesn't have the significance or coverage to meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Passes GNG. The article should probably be moved to HIEW, as it looks like quality sources capitalize all the letters. I did find some RS in google books; all of which describe it as an essential and foundational tool for hacking which would seem to indicate some notability. See below.4meter4 (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Szor (2005). The Art of Computer Virus Research and Defense. Pearson Education. ISBN 9780672333903.
Kris Kaspersky (2007). Hacker Disassembling Uncovered, 2nd Ed. A-LIST, LLC.
Reginald Wong (2018). "Tools of the Trade". Mastering Reverse Engineering: Re-engineer Your Ethical Hacking Skills. Packt Publishing. p. 139. ISBN 9781788835299.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In dealing with a 11 year old questioned article, the first step is not to nominate for AfD, but to try using BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - beyond the subject passing WP:GNG, this nomination was launched less than 120 seconds after an unrelated edit by the nominator. In the intervening one minute, the nominator tagged it for notability. There's no conceivable way WP:BEFORE was conducted. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hiew is an iconic piece of software which at least a generation grew up on and learned low-level programming. Andrej Shadura (talk) 21:18, 24 September 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. ✗plicit 12:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Bagsby

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

DOesn't appear to meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for 11 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. According to his website he's been inducted into the Western Swing Hall of Fame, which if we can find an independent ref to verify he would pass criteria 1 of WP:CREATIVE. This website, tulsatvmemories, which is affiliated with the Tulsa World, documents one of his projects and provides links to several articles in the Tulsa World where he and his work are the main subject. Here's a more recent review in the TW. There's lot's of TW press on Bagsby going back decades which I can't access because of a pay wall, but can see in searches (for example [51]). All of this to say, he appears to be an important artist in Oklahoma with plenty of RS to pass GNG, and with the Hall of Fame induction should meet our inclusion guidelines for artists.4meter4 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 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, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @4meter4: when I go to his website, it turns out to be for two people. The only claim about the Western Swing Hall of Fame is for Steve, not David. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for catching my error. Regardless, I think there is enough RS on David to pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #2. The links I've seen are interviews, or brief mentions. I suspect 4meter4 is correct about more press behind the paywall, but one can't rely on unseen stuff. Given that I know very little about the Tulsa music world, I don't feel comfortable !voting delete, but can't !vote keep either. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - invalid nomination. This article was nominated for deletion within 60 seconds of unrelated edits to other things by the nominator. There's no possible way WP:BEFORE tagging, searches and discussions could have been conducted before this was nominated. Combined with the thoughtful case made above, I'm seeing no reason this should be deleted. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not policy based rationale. scope_creep^Talk 12:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the sources already shared, I found this magazine article discussing a band Bagsby was involved in, though they no longer list him as a member. Regardless, I feel there are enough sources here to establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a blog. You seem to a have sceloritic understanding of what constitutes significant coverage. Doesn't meet WP:SPS. scope_creep^Talk 12:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a blog. Oklahoma magazine is printed every month and circulated throughout the state. See below.4meter4 (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete These are poor reference that have been offered up for obscure person. The rest of the references look like blog and self-published sources. Why are these sources being offered up when they are not significant coverage? Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creep^Talk 12:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... scope creep the sources being offered up are all from the Tulsa World which is the major regional newspaper for the Eastern half of the state of Oklahoma. TulsaTVMemories is affiliated with the newspaper (according to The Tulsa World which links to the page in some of their articles on Bagby), and there are multiple url links on that page to articles on Bagby in The Tulsa World archives. Rather than copy pasting each url link to the newspaper, I thought this page was handy as a navigational tool to relevant RS in the Tulsa World. Clearly you did not examine the content closely or fairly evaluate it in your assessment above.4meter4 (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, I didn’t see the source you mislabeled as a blog by another user. Oklahoma magazine is not a blog. It’s actually a monthly magazine which is printed and is circulated throughout the state of Oklahoma; often available to grab for free in public spaces throughout the state such as public libraries, government buildings, museums, etc. See https://okmag.com/.4meter4 (talk) 13:53, 23 September 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 12:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

H. F. Samuels

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

Obscure perennial candidate fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 00:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as a mining executive. Somebody wrote a book about him as a coal person rather than a politician: Barrett, Glen (1900). Idaho Coal: H.F. Samuels and the Teton Basin Mines. This talks about one of his companies: Commission, United States Interstate Commerce (1934). Interstate Commerce Commission Reports: Reports and Decisions of the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States. L.K. Strouse. Here and here he testifies before a congressional committee about his zinc mining company . This seems to show that he was a breeder of shorthorn cattle. More in the context of local history. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The gbook reference would have swung it for me, but it looks industry publication at 84 pages, more a booklet. The rest breeding, cattle, and testifying in congress are neither unique nor particularly uncommon. To me he looks like a local farmer, later coal miner and later who tried to become a politician and failed. The references don't support NPOL nor [{WP:BIO]]. scope_creep^Talk 15:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although he didn't win anything, it's evident he was a major force in Idaho politics for approximately 15 years in the early 20th Century. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 03:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The author of the book has 18 publications to his name and was a professor of history at Boise State University. Subject passes WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Enos733 fails WP:NPOL passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Enos733 and Eastmain. Passes GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:40, 26 September 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.