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 keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Fine Wine & Spirits

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

Article likely fails WP:ORG, and was created originally by an author affiliated with said company. Not enough secondary sources either. --Z L Media 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. --Z L Media 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --Z L Media 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. --Z L Media 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --Z L Media 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do note that even though the page was created by someone affiliated with the company, that is not inherently grounds for deletion. This editor declared his WP:COI, and per Xtools only has 18% authorship of the page. Curbon7 (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ The Orlando Sentinel piece is surprisingly in-depth about the company. Mlb96 (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't realize that WP:NORG specifically requires multiple sources, so I'm striking my !vote. Mlb96 (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Decided to see if there are any in-depth sources:

Florida Trend article about its history and doesn't seem like a press release – The Grid (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found coverage in news: WFLA, WJXT, Tampa Bay Times, The Capital and Miami Herald. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apopolips (talk • contribs) 22:12, 15 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) 23:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than the first citation about the owner dying, the rest are just "opening a new store" or "starting alcohol delivery". Which are really just press releases. Nothing of note about the company itself. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although both the Florida Trend article and the Orlando Sentinel article appear to be puff pieces, it isn't a clear and certain fact and it could be argued that the text contains enough "fact checking" and "opinion" to meet WP:ORGIND so giving the benefit of the doubt coupled with the age and size of this company, I'd say it is notable and meets WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the Florida Trend article feels a tad promotional, it is in-depth and appears to be independent (has an author listed, part of a series about 350 Florida companies). While I can't access the Orlando Sentinel article, if it is as described by Mlb96 then we have multiple reliable, independent, in-depth sources. There is also a wide range of sources already cited in the article. I feel WP:GNG has been met. NemesisAT (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A family liquor store with some money to spend on advertising. scope_creep^Talk 12:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not one store, rather a chain of 140 according to the article. NemesisAT (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HighKing. Passes WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 21:48, 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 merge to The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rezwan Razack

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

Advertisement. Lack of significant coverage that are independent of the subject. Linkedin is not a reliable reference. fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors—of which subject is the co-author—or the Prestige Group—of which the subject is a member. Subject is also founder of Museum of Indian Paper Money, which has a fair amount of coverage and may be notable on its own. Notability is not inherited through these, but the topics are fairly closely related to the subject. The subject also appears to be a researcher and expert in field of Indian banknotes. I've added some references (including one from the BBC) that seem to touch upon the subject more directly; I don't know enough about them to know if they are all reliable sources and article could use a copyedit to better incorporate them. —Ost (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors. The subject lacks secondary sources to establish notability.defcon5 (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the book's page. I couldn't find any sources at this point that could help establish notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors. 4meter4 (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:50, 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. ✗plicit 11:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Applied DNA Sciences

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

Not enough significant coverage to pass WP:CORP. One of the refs here is a company press release to investors and others are just passing mentions and routine business coverage. Uhooep (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The first source does not cover the subject in-depth, the second is Guitar-Muse, which is not a reliable source, and the third is a press release, thus none of the sources cited demonstrate why it should be of inclusion. Multi7001 (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's a lot of routine business coverage and stock market movement articles to wade through, but I've found a few articles with proper coverage of the company.

Inside The Two Biotech Companies Working Together On A Covid-19 Vaccine For Cats by a Forbes staff member
The Scramble Is on to Prove Raw Material Provenance by Sourcing Journal, an industry news site
Stony Brook-based Applied DNA Sciences Has Covid-19 Vaccines in Trial by Long Island Press

There are also some Newsday articles about this company covering its COVID-19 research in more detail, but I can't access them due to GDPR - would appreciate if another editor outside Europe could have a look at them for me to see if they count. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 12:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since this is a company, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP which requires a reference to contain in-depth information on the company and "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". The references in the article fails NCORP as pointed out by Multi7001 above. The references posted by Pinktoebeans also don't meet NCORP as follows:

Forbes staff member] reference describes how two companies (one of which is the topic company) are in partnership to develop a Covid-19 vaccine for cats. While there is a lot of info about the vaccine and its development and potential trials, there is no in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
The reference in Sourcing Journal relies entirely on information provided during "a recent fireside chat" with a company executive. The article adds no "Independent Content" - all of the info/opinion/etc comes from the company executive - and fails WP:ORGIND.
The Long Island Press reference discusses the company in the context of various Covid-19 efforts the information is provided entirely by the company CEO or other information provided by the involved companies. As above, there is no "Independent Content" and this also fails WP:ORGIND.

I am unable to locate and references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: none of these sources meet RS standard, or cover the article as a feature, Fails WP:NCORP - needs way more RS to establish notability, which clearly doesn't exist. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:13, 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 speedily deleted. by Bbb23 under WP:G5 (non-admin closure) Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Satlaj Indori

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

Notability can't be inherited. Most of his coverage is in context of his father. But, he himself is not qualifying any notability criteria. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:36, 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. It appears the subject passes WP:GNG while perhaps doesn't fulfill the requirements of WP:FOOTY. Keep in mind that FOOTY is a secondary notability guideline, and is only intended as a shortcut to estimate whether or not a subject is likely to pass GNG. Once it has been established that a subject does pass GNG, then the secondary notability guideline is no longer relevant. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eder Sarabia

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

Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played or managed in a WP:FPL. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this subject doesn't fail WP:GNG as has been significantly featured in MARCA and lots of other reputable sources that are reliable and independent. Just like the article of Rui Faria which was created because of his general notability, this article should be kept also. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ugochukwu75: Rui Faria's article have a good amount of coverage and references, plus he did manage in a WP:FPL with Al-Duhail. Two completely different situations. Aside of that, Sarabia's article doesn't even have the correct infobox. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BrazilianDude70: I can add more coverage to the article. Rui Faria's page was created in 2010 but he didn't manage a club in WP:FPL till 2019. A tag was already added to the page for improvements which I'm already doing. There are also other options like moving the article to draft space which could be done also. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Manuel Sarabia? He is mentioned there, so... Geschichte (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No FPL involvement. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manuel Sarabia as a reasonable WP:ATD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG, despite failing NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a Google search finds a lot of material supporting GNG in the last few days, and going back 5 years. Examples one, two ProQuest 2378452790, three. BEFORE fail. Nfitz (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG - none of the articles used for references were trivial mentions of the subject. Though never managed any team in the WP:FPL, he was a notable assistant manager in two top Spanish teams, Real Betis and FC Barcelona and currently manages a third tier team, FC Andorra. Binaza (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG though fails WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:34, 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. ✗plicit 00:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of the oldest living Major League Baseball players

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

This is not, in fact, a list of living baseball players. Nor is it the oldest people to ever play. It's not even the longest lived baseball players. This confusing list reports the succession of players who have held the made-up title of "oldest living former baseball player". Surprisingly, it's not original to Wikipedia: the baseball-reference.com wiki has a similar list which predates this one by a decade or more.

A single baseball statistics wiki isn't sufficient to demonstrate that this record is in any way notable, so the list fails WP:LISTN as well as WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTMIRROR. pburka (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTSTATS, just copied from baseball-reference.com, without further sources explaining why this is such a notable distinction. Nate Berkenstock played one single game and coincidentally lived 28 years after that – who cares? Reywas92^Talk 23:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's not even clear what it means by "oldest living" -- and it's easily confused with List of oldest living Major League Baseball players. This is not something that appears important, encyclopedia worthy, or notable. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 02:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. That is some seriously terrible grammar— nobody says “oldest living” to mean “longest living” just like they don’t say “building that stood the oldest” to mean “buildings that stood the longest”. Dronebogus (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The grammar is convoluted because the concept is convoluted. If someone actually needed to know who were the longest-lived ballplayers, they'd need to look for List of centenarians (Major League Baseball players). pburka (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if it’s that incomprehensibly convoluted then it’s almost certainly not a notable concept. This is almost cartoonishly arbitrary and overly specific— like “list of fattest Mexican dogs by decade” or something like that. Dronebogus (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the appropriate title would be Oldest living Major League Baseball player record progression or Progression of oldest living Major League Baseball player or some slight variation thereon, along the lines of Men's 200 metres world record progression...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, I disclose that I created this article two years ago, with the title "List of the oldest living Major League Baseball player" (singular), which I believe is more accurate than the current title; it was changed by somebody else after its creation, and I'll be glad to change it back. Although I don't think that the original grammar was poor, grammar can be changed. The article complies with Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Selection_criteria in that it is not making judgements, it is not original research, the criteria for inclusion are clear, etc. It does not merely duplicate the information on Baseball Reference. I also confess that I don't understand how it fails the policies cited so far, any differently than do dozens of other baseball list articles such as List of Major League Baseball career home run leaders, List of Major League Baseball career hits leaders, List of Major League Baseball career wins leaders that appear non-controversial, and hundreds of other list articles when including other sports. As somebody who is interested in geriatrics, as well as baseball statistics that are generated off the field or outside of games, I believe that there is value in this list. Thanks for reading. Ira Leviton (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The three lists you refer to are very different from this list. They're not about succession, but more importantly they're all about notable records which are widely reported and followed. How many newspapers reported when Ike Kahdot (who played 4 games in 1922) broke Red Hoff's record for oldest living ballplayer in 1998? pburka (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that the issue is about how many newspapers report something, it's about whether an event happened and was recorded so it can be cited, and whether it was notable. Of course home runs and hits in baseball are much more important than the longevity of players. But player longevity has been reported on and researched in general, and I believe that it meets notability criteria for Wikipedia, so that's why I made the list. (By the way, the three lists that I mentioned could have been copied from many other sites, probably thousands. That arguably makes their listing on Wikipedia trivial. But don't worry – I'm not seriously advocating that they should be deleted.) Ira Leviton (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is determined by significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. To show it's notable you need to provide examples of sources that address the topic directly and in detail. (The topic, in this case, being the succession of oldest living ballplayers.) pburka (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pburka:I've added citations to a number of the individual entries – as many as I had time to find within the 7 day time frame. I used a variety of sources, including books and newspaper obituaries, in an attempt to show significant coverage in reliable and independent sources as you mentioned. More than 2⁄3 of the entries now have at least one citation that is not simply from a similar list. I left in the Baseball-reference.com citations because they still provide useful information about the players, and I'll continue to add citations to the remaining players if the article survives.

- Temporarily holding a certain unremarkable record within a certain area, with the record having nothing to do with said area, is not notable information. Dronebogus (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No different from the List of presidents of the United States by age page. Bkatcher (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How many times must it be stated that “other stuff exists” is a meaningless argument? Dronebogus (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utter trivia. (Also to preclude the crime against English grammar of possibly restoring the original page name.) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: List of centenarians (Major League Baseball players) already covers the most significant examples.4.71.249.251 (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, that's an IP address with only three edits, purely used for voting! Please discount their vote! Bkatcher (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Their argument is a lot more competent than “I like this” etc. so it’s valid. The problem is new IP editors who jump on bandwagons without good arguments, which suggests they might either be be sockpuppets/meat puppets or completely ignorant of how AfD works. Also I’m pretty sure you’re being sarcastic but most editors aren’t going to get your in-joke so please don’t confuse people. Dronebogus (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not joking. How do we know this IP, which has only edited on this AFD, isn't the sockpuppet of someone who already voted here? If this is an experienced wikipedian, wouldn't they already have an account? Or DO they? Bkatcher (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well even if it is voting is based more on the strength of the arguments, not the number of votes. If most of the votes are already leaning one way with solid arguments attached another vote for the same doesn’t change much. And in any case admins are allowed to give registered users more weight anyway when closing so there’s no point in deleting/striking out the vote or whatever unless something can be proven. Dronebogus (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please remember to WP:AGF and WP:DONTBITE. pburka (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I did note vote multiple times on this discussion. My vote was based on the fact that “oldest living person to happened to have been a Major League Baseball player at some point during their lives” doesn’t seem to be a noteworthy distinction discussed by sources.4.71.249.251 (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Consensus at AFD recently has overwhelmingly supported not utilizing lists of "oldest living..."; largely because such lists are constantly changing as people age and die and maintaining accuracy and verifiability is a difficult and on-going task. Many editors consider such lists not encyclopedic (because they are inherently unstable) and in contradiction to policy at WP:LISTN. I share that view which I consider now to be the standard modus operandi/precedent at AFD within the application of NLIST in these type of list discussions.4meter4 (talk) 22:10, 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 delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the House of Blues (Jethro Tull album)

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

Bootlegs with no indication of notability - cf "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." - Wikipedia:Notability_(music) Beardo (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jethro Tull discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this album isn't mentioned at the discography page, and as an unofficial bootleg, it should probably not be added there – see Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#What should not be included (yes, I know this isn't an official guideline, but it's still worth following). So this fails WP:NALBUM, and if it's not mentioned in any other article, a redirect seems pointless. Richard3120 (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Richard3120. Without SIGCOV, we don't include bootleg recordings on discographies.4meter4 (talk) 22:36, 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Jacobs (journalist)

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

All the sources seem to be routine name mentioning for job promotions. It's not like they are writing articles about this guy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment I take issue with the over-generalization that All the sources seem to be routine name mentioning for job promotions. At least two sources seem to be completely independent of any association with Jacobs or PR releases. One is about Samuel Jacobs himself & the other is about the changing face of Time's editorial staff.

Doris, Jameson (July 25, 2016). "Rising Stars: Sam Jacobs Helps Time Find a Younger Audience". Folio.
Hays, Kali (April 10, 2019). "Time Magazine Taps New Crop of Editors". Women's Wear Daily.

Peaceray (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to me notable, high management of Time (magazine). 2 independent sources. Grimes2 (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me changing your voting format. The proper way to vote is to state "Keep" so the bots can pick it up correctly in the stats. Peter303x (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant news coverage exists and he is Deputy Director of Time, one of the most well known publications. Peter303x (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks depth necessary for inclusion. Not encyclopedic. Fails WP:BASIC in that most of the coverage is trivial industry rag type naval gazing. Jtbobwaysf Appears to have been created by a likely WP:SPA, probably a paid editor whose purpose is to create this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of this article (in both English and French) has been confirmed as a sockpuppet. Kingsif (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a completely open mind until I read that this was created by a sockpuppet. On its own merits, I thought the page should have remained a draft for longer, as Jacobs appears to have a high position at Time & eventually might be noteable. But any actions of sockpuppets & potential unethical paid editing should be summarily deleted, reverted, or otherwise tossed on the ash heap. Peaceray (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. fr:Samuel Jacobs was deleted as Cross-wiki spam et faux-nez bloqué indéf [Cross-wiki spam and indef blocked sock puppet]. Peaceray (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BASIC per sources provided by Grimes2. Additionally, I would consider his position at Time senior enough to pass criteria 1 of WP:JOURNALIST. In my view, the sock puppetry has unfairly prejudiced the delete voters at neutrally assessing the subject. 4meter4 (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it has multiple reliable sources, and he has a major position at Time. I don't consider the sockpuppet argument persuasive, since another editor made major edits to the article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has significant coverage from multiple sources and the article seems to be neutral in point of view. I don't see how the sockpuppetry warrants deletion here. --Coolperson177 (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several keep !votes seem to be under the impression that the article was nominated for deletion because of sockpuppetry and argue that this alone shouldn't warrant deletion; besides the fact that any article which has only been substantially edited by a blocked sockpuppet should be deleted, the article was nominated for deletion because of concerns about sources only discussing Jacobs as a passing mention, which is insufficient for GNG. This is what should be discussed in !votes, and the above comment mention of sockpuppetry was a neutral courtesy message for awareness, especially with a prior !vote accusing the creator of being paid SPA. Kingsif (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your analysis. I think we are arguing the subject meets NJOURNALIST and GNG and that the delete votes are using sock puppetry to ignore NJOURNALIST and GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we would be remiss as Wikipedians if we ignored all the information to which we have access. Just as if you start an article for one reason & find an additional reason for the article, you do not ignore the second reason & only base the article on the first one.

That noted, I will reiterate that I have stated On its own merits, I thought the page should have remained a draft for longer. I think that Jacobs' senior position at Time is pretty thin for criteria 1 of WP:JOURNALIST. Perhaps the article can be returned to the Draft namespace until there is additional citations for notability, other than those that note position changes or are closely connected to the institutions with which Jacobs has an association. Peaceray (talk) 19:43, 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 speedy deleted by Jimfbleak: CSD G11Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Also salted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pulinda Lakshitha Ekanayake

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

Has been sent to draft numerous times due to COI/UPE concerns but keeps coming back as the WP:SPA editor insists on posting it again and again. I recommend not only deletion but also WP:SALT to stop this continuous cycle of recreating. No English-language coverage can be found and "පුලින්ද ලක්ෂිත ඒකනායක" only really brings up his Sinhalese Wikipedia article, which, unsurprisingly, was also written by Pulinda himself. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion and this person does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. If he ever does become notable, I'm sure someone other than Pulinda will be happy to write an article about him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: and Salt for now, fails GNG JW 1961^Talk 18:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt unless someone can find Sinhalese sources that show notability. Mccapra (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt, clearly fails WP: ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. 2407:7000:9D08:BE00:11D4:E07F:4206:26E4 (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Making a journalist notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia does not entail referencing the article to video clips of him doing his job, or staff directories on the website of his own employer — it entails referencing the article to journalism about him in sources that do not sign his paycheques, representing third party analysis of his significance. That's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per all of above.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and salt fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 23:15, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Shaw

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

BLP based on a personal interview with the subject. Does not pass WP:NPROF or WP:AUTHOR. Mccapra (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks WP:TOOSOON for WP:NAUTHOR or WP:CREATIVE, especially in a field that is not reviewed so frequently as with prose books. WP:NPROF is unlikely for an assistant professor. No other signs of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This does not meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:BASIC and fails WP:PROF because the subject appears to have been an assistant lecturer, not an adjunct professor, nearly two decades ago. While the subject has had some luck in publishing poetry in small presses, notability has not been shown. Clearly fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to pass WP:NPROF, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only claim to notability seems to be the Tampa Review Prize but that by itself is not substantial enough. --hroest 21:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 23:16, 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 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... [1] [2]) and mostly recently they've been releasing trailers/behind-the-scenes videos ([3] [4]). 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 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelana Mahessa

(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. [5] and [6]) 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.[7] 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. ✗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 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

(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. 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 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 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: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. (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 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 [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], 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 [30]. 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 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 [31]). 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.