Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 10

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
< June 09 June 11 >

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. Clear consensus for the article to be retained. Of note is that several participants here have stated that this is an historically significant person in the history of New Zealand, and relative to these notions, note that WP:BIO1E states that "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." North America1000 01:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emily McWilliam edit

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

Rest of a legal ruling. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 23:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: First woman to be divorced in NZ. Academic article in the Otaki Historical Society. Also covered here (one of NZ's major news outlets). Furius (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Additional references have been added to the article: the Stuff newspaper article (noted above by Furius) written by a senior curator of human history at Canterbury Museum plus a further article from the Otaki Historical Journal which describes the fate of a significant bequest left to memorialise Emily McWilliam for her voluntary work in association with the local cottage hospital) Noracrentiss (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: With the additional references added since this was put up for AfD, we now have sufficient in-depth sources that show that WP:GNG has been met. Full disclosure – I was asked by the article's author how to respond to this AfD. My response is on her talk page. Schwede66 05:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I took out several references that were junk. Perhaps you can update the article with proper reliable sources, that constitute secondary sources and that prove historical significance. The article from "Stuff" ref has been taken from the Otaki society, making it a duplicate source. You need stronger refs that prove historical significance. Not profile pages scope_creepTalk 09:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Scope creep: I was just looking at the Stuff article and am wondering why you say it has been taken from the Otaki society? The author, Julia Bradshaw, is from Canterbury Museum, and although one of the photos is reproduced from the Otaki Historical Society Journal there's no suggestion that the rest of the article is similarly copied (unless I am missing something). Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Looks fine to me as is. Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have made some suggestions for small improvements to the article's author. I hope this article will not be deleted. The story of Emily McWilliam and the development of NZ legislation separate from Britain is a part of New Zealand's social history. Gertrude206 (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "Worthy of notice" and having historic value. Looks fine to me as well. - The9Man (Talk) 19:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:GNG and WP:BIO requirements are met, as there is significant coverage of her life in multiple reliable sources as well as some coverage in other sources. As noted above, there doesn't appear to be any duplication in the sources between the Stuff.co.nz newspaper article and the Otaki society journal. The article is missing citations for some of the biographical details, but this isn't a dealbreaker. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 01:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Namrrta Raai edit

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 23:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the coverage. Nobody is watching her on Youtube and refs, 1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,13, and 14 will need to be removed, as they are junk. Where is the coverage that will replace them. scope_creepTalk 13:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 01:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Ferdinand Muller von Czernicki edit

Otto Ferdinand Muller von Czernicki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be a similar case to the Japanese football articles that I nominated last year for deletion. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. While he was selected for the 1928 Summer Olympics team, he did not appear in a match. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It says that he was part of the Netherlands National Hockey Team. Doesn't that make him noteable? Tec Tom (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a historic field hockey player and business management professional there is no BLP concern. Having dived into Delpher, Muller von Czernicki's participation in matches for his own team and for the Dutch national field hockey team are well covered and not just listed. In general, failing WP:NFOOTBALL should not be a huge problem for a hockey player, neither would a precedent in Japanese football. Consequent also covered career adds to the historic interest and importance of Muller von Czernicki. gidonb (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linux Users of Victoria edit

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

A WP:BEFORE check found nothing to indicate this organization meets the notability guideline i.e. I did not find any reliable sources discussing the topic in depth, much less multiple. Izno (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hm. This is local to me, so I have a reasonable eye for sources. This is pretty short and can be construed as routine, but it's entirely about it, from one of our national newspapers of record, and, importantly, not local -- the Sydney Morning Herald covering a group local to Melbourne caught my attention. This, this, and this represent them as important to the national FOSS community. This calls them "Australia's best known and most active open source community" (translated). Vaticidalprophet 17:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moving confidently to keep after running newspapers.com and finding this ("LUV conquers all") and this ("A Linux rebel without a clue") in addition to the FUTON sourcing. Vaticidalprophet 17:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sufficient sources. --Bduke (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing in the article shows why it is notable. Having almost 1500 members does not make it notable, quite the reverse. Lots of organisations have more than 1500 members and are not notable.--Grahame (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the sources noted above (which really ought to be incorporated into the article). jp×g 07:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't see any evidence in the sources quoted that it is a notable organisation. Nobody seems to be addressing notability.--Grahame (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've expanded it based on the sources above. Vaticidalprophet could you please add text for sources [6] and [7] sources from newspapers.com as I don't seem to have access? Thanks. --Gryllida (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this clearly fails WP:NORG - having reviewed the available sources, they're very much local coverage failing WP:AUD, with one of them being in the first person and likely not independent. The one that's technically not local is a very routine news announcement from the Sydney Morning Herald. I have no idea why we're calling these sources sufficient. SportingFlyer T·C 15:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Ment edit

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

I believe this individual (in an article unsourced for 15 years) does not meet NMUSICIAN. While in theory WP:BAND#6 could apply, as well as stating it shouldn't be relied upon, the JLO is itself dubiously cited.

There are a few sources that can be found, but I could only find mentions in RS/indy secondary sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd have more reservations about not being able to find sources since it's a German artist, but the dewiki page is also mostly unsourced. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there doesn't appear to be adequate coverage in sources to argue that the subject should have an article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoice Iwueze edit

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creepTalk 23:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Subject is not notable. She does not meet GNG or MUSICBIO. The band "Destined Kids" may however be notable for their work in the early noughties. Princess of Ara(talk) 10:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As I said when I prodded it, there might be a case for an article on the band she belonged to, Destined Kids, since the only good sourcing in the article is about the band. As a single artist does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 TT me 22:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think Destined Kids (the band of 6) is notable, she definitely isn't notable.--Chuka Chieftalk 15:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. -Xclusivzik (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  JGHowes  talk 01:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gui Santos edit

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

Looks like WP:TOOSOON. Doesn't meet Wikipedia:NBASKETBALL as playing for the NBB isn't a pass for notability. Santos also has yet to go through the first two rounds of NBA draft. The sources do not seem to be a pass of WP:GNG. Might be worth for Portuguese speaking editors to chip in on this one. nearlyevil665 19:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 19:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 19:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley D. Harris edit

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

This guy is a professor in a program that was initially set up to train scout leaders (or at least he was a decade ago), which has slightly broderned its scope more recently. Not every such professor is notable. The works he wrote are not notable. We have not even agreed to accept that members of the general presidencies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints organizations are notable, but clearly the general board members are not notable. His role in the Boy Scouts of America was not at a level or in a way that got public attention enough to show notability. The sources are not fully indepdent, especially not the scouting one. The Deseret News article comes from a human insterest section, so I am not sure it would ever be enough to add towards passing GNG, but it is clearly not enough on its own. I created this article back at a time when I operated on the assumption that virtually all professors and a good portion of published authors were notable. I have since come to realize that there are way too many of both for that to be the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see a NPROF pass, and his Boy Scout of American activities and/or other activities have not generated SIGCOV.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not seeing any of the WP:NPROF criteria being met, most coverage I can find comes from within his own organization/affiliated publications. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moufid Aziz edit

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

Badly fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR/WP:NMODEL. Nothing really outside mentioning of one movie and social media presence. Kolma8 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Baha Akşit edit

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Thank you to SportingFlyer and Extraordinary Writ for adding references to meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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

Fails WP:GNG. No claim to notability made in the article. 4meter4 (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – although the article hadn't said so, it does indeed appear that he was a member of both houses of Turkey's national legislature; he thus passes WP:NPOL. I've added this to the article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely passes WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Currently the sources in the article seem pretty weak towards establishing WP:SIGCOV. One of the sources has a url that leads nowhere, and the other is a minor entry within a government website. Now that a claim of notability has been made, the article still has to meet the sourcing requirement at GNG and at NPOL.4meter4 (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under NPOL, national-level legislators are generally considered automatically notable, regardless of whether they meet the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary Writ Then why preface NPOL with WP:BASIC? I think you are stretching WP:NPOL beyond the broader policy frame at Wikipedia:Notability (people). While it appears NPOL may be met, the article still has to meet WP:BASIC which requires in depth coverage. The one source (as the other is a dead link) we have is not in depth. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Special Cases gives clear guidance for when articles are "Failing basic criteria (WP:BASIC) but meeting additional criteria (ie. WP:NPOL)". Those guidelines are to merge this article into another article, not keep it. At this point that seems to be where we are currently at based on the one source we currently have.4meter4 (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes NPOL; significant Demokrat Parti member who served in both houses of Turkey's national parliament, sentenced to be executed following the 1960 coup and subsequently commuted to life in prison. This is information readily at hand in under 10 minutes of searching; AfD is not clean up. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please post those sources here for all to see. Thank you.4meter4 (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NPOL - while the article was in a truly sad state at the time of the nomination, the subject is notable enough for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 16:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Ahmad Marei edit

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

Not Notable Person --Aliaboomar (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable. This AfD is frivolous. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexandermcnabb Since it is clear and you have done a search, please provide three sources that cover the subject in depth and are verifiable, reliable and independent of the subject. --ARoseWolf 12:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - The subject is referred to as an "obscure figure" and the "head of a small, officially sanctioned opposition group". Can not find any reliable sources that give the subject in-depth coverage. My assessment is that it should be a redirect to 2021 Syrian presidential election. --ARoseWolf 13:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In the Guardian article, his name is given as "Marie", not "Marei". Is this just an error? Deb (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a lazy error. Also there's a transliteration issue at hand, 'cos Arabic has to jump scripts. So you might see Marey or Maree or Maray. In Arabic, مرعي is 'Ma rei'. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Articles about party leaders are generally allowed, and I don't see any reason why this page would be any different. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 18:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was a candidate in a national election that received international coverage. Would we be here if he had run for POTUS? Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Alexander Hamilton#Childhood in the Caribbean. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Fawcett edit

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

Used to sell two books. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 22:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I disagree with deletion of this article. This historical figure is the mother of one of the founding fathers of the US, Alexander Hamilton. Her husband, who is not a historical figure related to a significant luminary, has had a Wikipedia page for significantly longer. Rachel raised Alexander and his brother as a single mother and this upbringing granted him a strength of character to in turn contribute significantly in US history. Deleting the page for his mother is erasing that background for an important figure." <-- User:Jendoxx
Keep I don't see how this article is selling anything... I think she passes WP:GNG, since a number of reliable sources discuss her and her impact on Alexander Hamilton (a different thing, I think from just being "related to" him). Furius (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two of the references are Amazon book entries. So it is advertising the books on here. Plain and Simple. There was other references that were taken including a Jstor refs, to replaced by the Amazon refs. On top of that no coverage worth speaking of. scope_creepTalk 10:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they should have formatted the reference to refer to the books directly. But the two books are by different authors and different publishers. It seems extremely unlikely to me that this is part of a conspiracy to sell books. I don't understand what you are saying about the JSTOR reference. In addition to references to this figure in every book on Alexander Hamilton, there are also discussions of her here, here, here ... Furius (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Breanne McGhee edit

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. No effective references. scope_creepTalk 22:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. PR flim-flam. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. She's had her OD for just 5 years (but is apparently both a full-time optometrist and a PhD student?), has no Scopus- or WoS-indexed publications, and apparently supports FRINGE treatments (vision therapy). No evidence she's actually notable through either NPROF or GNG. This is one of several UW WikiEd BIPOC bios that have strongly failed notability...JoelleJay (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Assistant prof, no indication of passing WP:NPROF, awards seem early career, and not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, maybe way way TOOSOON. Fails WP:NPROF, all awards are student / early career awards. --hroest 13:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPROF, and I was unable to find adequate coverage in independent sources to argue that the subject passes WP:GNG at the moment. If the article was more neutral in tone I'd have argued for draftify as it might just be a bit WP:TOOSOON. Watchlisting this in case new sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bengt Åkerblom edit

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

Fails notability per WP:ONEEVENT. The article makes no claim to notability other than the impact of his death. 4meter4 (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Meets WP:NHOCKEY, he played at the top level of the Swedish hockey system from 88-90. Playing on the championship team of one the top leagues in the world would probably also be an event I would think. Article does need improvement though.18abruce (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself doesn’t make that claim. Please add it to the article with a reliable source.4meter4 (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Åkerblom meets WP:NHOCKEY criteria #1 by playing in the highest tier of professional hockey in Sweden. I agree that the article needs improvement. Flibirigit (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Flibirigit's edits have updated the article to where it matches WP:NHOCKEY. I'm going to withdraw the nom momentarily. A big thank you to Flibirigit.4meter4 (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. A big thank you to Julle who sourced the article with reliable references and demonstrated the subject is notable, Thank to all who participated in this discussion.(non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lennart Ahlin edit

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

Fails WP:GNG. Subject lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. 4meter4 (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOLY does not subvert the “basic criteria” section of WP:NSPORT which requires significant coverage in multiple independent references. Scroll up on that page and read that section.4meter4 (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this meets WP:NOLY. It would actually be great to expand the article using old newspaper clippings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click) and Lugnuts: Check this out. I wish there was a way to identify what press article it came from.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 08:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would the keep voters please produce sources per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. NOLY is a subsection of NSPORT. And if you read the “Basic criteria” section, evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources is required. Simply saying notable without providing evidence isn’t a sound or rational argument based in policy.4meter4 (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't done anything to overcome the presumption of notability. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 13:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s not policy. We don’t presume things are notable, we prove they are notable through evidence. You can’t prove something isn’t notable with evidence. You prove something isn’t notable through lack of evidence. Where’s the evidence? The onus is on the keep voters to produce it.4meter4 (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything in WP:N is about presumption. The community decides. And if you want to say an Olympian is not notable—if you want to community that this article should not exist—you're gonna have to show that there's no coverage. Show your work. What have you done to search sources from the relevant language, relevant location, relevant time period? -- Jonel (Speak to me) 13:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect. Read WP:SPORTCRIT which clearly states presumed notability is tied to evidence of sources. I did a WP:BEFORE search in pro quest and google books. No hits of significance, but granted I could have missed something. 4meter4 (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely inadequate searches for someone from Sweden active in the 1960s. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 14:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And what would be an adequate search?4meter4 (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Local newspapers from that time would be a good start. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 14:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See this is where the ridiculousness comes in. Where the problem becomes the researcher, and not the lack of evidence. Under this kind of logic we would never delete anything, because whether the sources truly exist or not, people will always say you didn't look in the right place and there must be something somewhere. Let's return to WP:SPORTCRIT, "A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" We still need a source for this article that matches that description in order to presume notability. 4meter4 (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, presumptions shift the burden of providing evidence. It's on you. "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games . . . ." WP:NOLY. Olympians are almost always notable. You're making the extraordinary claim that this one is not. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 15:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation of policy. It doesn't square with the actual language in SPORTCRIT in the opening statement. This is exactly the kind of reasoning that led to Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#RFC on Notability (sports) policy and reliability issues. It's bad policy interpretation.4meter4 (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of that works very well if the subject was born in the internet age. Every Olympian gets extensive coverage today. But shutting out those same athletes that were born in 1920 is an affront to an encyclopedia. It's harder to dig up the fact of gng in a foreign language, so stubs are made in the hope that someone more fluent can read the language in a local paper. Some old newspapers may not have been as well archived, but they do exist. An Olympian representing their nation is presumed notable for good reasons. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Olympic competitors are presumed notable and the person’s home wiki shows that it is indeed the case. Schwede66 17:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Follows all the norms, could be made better by expanding. Article is notable enough to be kept.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mikindani Center of HOPE edit

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

Entirely unsourced since creation in 2010. No evidence of notability via coverage in reliable sources, website now appears to be a dead link. Was nominated for deletion back in 2012 and closed as a no consensus due to no participation. ~ mazca talk 20:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~ mazca talk 20:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. ~ mazca talk 20:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I can find no coverage sufficient to pass WP:NORG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don’t find anything that would support notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can't find sources supporting notability.--Chuka Chieftalk 15:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  JGHowes  talk 01:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A State of Trance 2008 edit

A State of Trance 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was previously AFD'd twice in 2008, article was deleted as a result of the first AFD due to the album not having released yet, then was a WP:SNOW keep (nom withdrawn after many keep votes) on the second AFD once it was recreated, with it being on the charts being cited as showing notability. Currently, the article relies only on chart listings, Discogs, the record label's website, and this article in Manila Standard Today which doesn't really say much. The only review I was able to find was a brief one by AllMusic here. Fails notability guidelines. Waxworker (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sehhat Foundation Danyor edit

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

Current sourcing is a dead link (to their own site), and simple mention in an article. Searches turned up zero in-depth sourcing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 20:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I can find only trivial coverage; nothing sufficient to meet WP:NORG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can’t find anything that would support notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's nothing in Sehhat Foundation Danyor to show notability, nor I did find anything for searching(on google) Sehhat Foundation, Sehhat Foundation Danyor, Sehat Foundation, Sehat Foundation, Sehat Foundation Gilgit and صحت فاؤنڈیشن دنیور, except for trivial mentions in some of research papers related to Opthalmology. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hashu Advani edit

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

Entirely sourced to self published material. A WP:BEFORE search yielded no sources. Admittedly, this topic may have foreign language references available which I am not able to search for, but as it stands fails WP:SIGCOV 4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He’s clearly notable under WP:NPOL though we’d apparently need a Marathi speaker to find sources. In English there’s this and sources showing that there are public buildings named after him. Mccapra (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he’s notable than produce the sources. Fundamentally we can’t verify content without RS. In order to have an entry we must have sources to back it up. WP:NPOL states this fact in the section “ Applicable policies and guidelines”. So no this article does not pass WP:NPOL without sources that can be produced here for us to evaluate. The article you linked to does not establish SIGCOV either as it’s just one source and it’s only part way about him.4meter4 (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:NPOL. This source confirms that Advani held two state-level ministerial posts and there could be other Marathi-language sources as well. Additionally, as the subject is from the pre-Internet era, finding sources on the web is not an easy task. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per WP:NPOL this source [6] is making him notable. He might fail GNG but it is not a concern for him . 1друг (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep elected parliamentary politician, minister in state government; passes NPOL. Less than five minutes of searching turns up RS confirming his positions; *all* election results are available via the Indian Electoral Commission website. AfD is not clean up. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment additional sources at 1, 2 and 3(p.417). Mccapra (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly a notable person having served as cabinet rank minister in a major state of India. Shyamsunder (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Lawrence Mangusho.  JGHowes  talk 01:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Cherop Mangusho edit

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

Possible copyvio of https://www.celebsagewiki.com/lawrence-mangusho (Earwig). Celebrity Wiki does not release its content under a free license, and it appears that this page was largely a copy-and-paste from there. Seems unlikely, as this page was just made, that it was the other way around. — Pbrks (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure what the correct procedure would be here given this is a copyvio, but the subject does satisfy WP:NPOL. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does satisfy WP:NPOL. I cannot confirm that wiki was updated before this Wikipedia page was created - that text was added 14 March, the earliest cache I can find of the celebsagewiki.com page dates to 21 March. I'm not convinced this isn't a false positive. SportingFlyer T·C 23:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I would like to give the benefit of the doubt here, the article's main contributor has been tagged for multiple copyvios already. Sure, its possible that it is a false positive, but considering the user's history and the amount of content on Celebrity Wiki versus here, I don't believe that it is. — Pbrks (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lawrence Mangusho. In fact, the CelebrityWiki page and this article were both copied from our already-existing article on the topic. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great catch. We can probably speedy redirect this. SportingFlyer T·C 09:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well-spotted, I have gone ahead and redirected the page. Greenman (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of integral thinkers and supporters edit

List of integral thinkers and supporters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is part of a long-standing WP:Walled garden of Integral theory (Ken Wilber) which was built at about the time that Wikipedia was first developing its rules for sourcing. Notice that the sources seem to all run afoul of WP:FRIND. In looking for replacement sources for "thinkers and supporters" that were not caught up in the belief system, I came up woefully short. jps (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty much the opposite of a well-sourced list. XOR'easter (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Mostly unsourced. Cited sources on the other hand are unreliable. Mosesheron (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Michel Crichton. -Roxy . wooF 13:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, this is a sort of "legacy" article, if done by AfC today it wouldn't be allowed. Doug Weller talk 15:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources present are reliable.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Whythouse edit

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

In my searches I can only find them on the usual self-published websites like Deezer, Apple Music, Spotify, YouTube, Twitter etc. Does not appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:BAND and appears to fail WP:GNG also. I have also asked the creator to disclose WP:COI as all of their edits seem to be promoting this non-notable band. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Shameless self-promotion claiming that a group that accomplished nothing 20 years ago were pioneers for an entire nation and have a cult following that's ecstatic about their recent reunion. The editor Plexomatic is almost certainly involved in a conflict of interest, and tried to turn his Talk page into a Project page (reversed by Spiderone). The editor did a lot of work adding the group's unknown cover version to Missing You (John Waite song) and barged into the Canadian hip hop article as if the group has some influence. They don't, as all of this is simply an extension of the self-created promo and streaming sites noted by Spiderone. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the creating editor attempted to deleted this AfD discussion, and blanked the page containing the AfD template, but as the page has been nominated for AfD the discussion should continue and be properly closed to leave a record of that decision. PamD 06:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Spiderone and Doomsdayer. Also, might I add that this is as far from an article as it gets. The logo of the band, an infobox and the listing of their short discography does not equal an article. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That one editor has been meddling with the article a lot. Yesterday it had text about their supposed influence and widespread anticipation for their reunion, which we have debunked here. Earlier today it was blanked out completely, right this minute it has a bare bullet list of songs. All for nothing. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If he had meddled with the article, it's another valid reason to delete this. Wikipedia is not a playground. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Definite COI here, as the article creator Plexomatic is also the stage name of Chris Hale, one of the members of the Whythouse. He has seven followers on Twitter and three followers on Soundcloud. I think we can safely say that this band is not notable. Richard3120 (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seafight edit

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

Unnotable game GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC) An online game which I don't see the notability of. Tagged for primary sources since 2010. Even though there are multiple interwiki links, the sourcing isn't better on any of those or in some, there are no sources whatsoever. I have found two sources that are somewhat acceptable, though I have doubts of their reliability. I know that IGN is a reliable source, but that article reads more like a press release. The first review is okay, though I don't know whether "mmobomb.com" is reliable or not. Other than these I only found links where you can play the game and trivial mentions. So I don't think this is a notable game. COI might also apply, as the article creator only edited articles about games made by Bigpoint, which also made this game (and "Radon Labs" is a subsidiary of Bigpoint).GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a review here but it's the only one I could find. The IGN source above is a press relase and MMOBomb is not reliable. Thus, the game does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NVG. IceWelder [✉] 19:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that MMOBomb is not reliable. Then we have only one good source (the Gamestar one) and one good source is not enough. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loizza Aquino edit

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 18:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the awards are a sign of notability. There are several reliable sources already cited in the article (the Star, Winnipeg Sun, possibly Flare) and others that aren't cited, such as the CBC [7], [8] and the Philstar [9] Furius (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sustained coverage in reliable sources over a 6+ years: Global News 2021, Global News 2018, CBC News 2015 among others. Seems to meet WP:GNG. Samsmachado (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 02:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoods (film) edit

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

Delete From reading the article about Hoods (film), I only saw one source. I don't think that this source is a reliable source. Not a single indication of notability, and it possibly fails GNG. Hayleez (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not established. The producers and some of the cast are notable, but the film has just not received any significant coverage that I could find. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Hog Farm Talk 02:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal Acquittal edit

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

Non-notable television film, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 17:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Kara edit

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

Fails WP:BIO, fails WP:GNG, not notable enough to warrant an article. SanAnMan (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SanAnMan (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with you.
I have updated the article with better citations.
Kara has been in Masterchef Junior, Masterchef Celebrity Showdown, and Guys Grocery Games. He is notable as he has played lead role in Kashif and has a supporting recurring role in Netflix's Grand Army. He also has a notable following on social media. Jackshere (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree (Keep)
Article has been updated to include chef as occupation. Also added more information to career to meet with WP:BIO and WP:GNG with verifiable sources in the references. Article compared to other Masterchef Junior Contestants and Winners if judged fairly and equally should meet the criteria. Thanks Jackshere (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
why are my comments striked out? new user here, but this is what goes against rules? Jackshere (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jackshere - User:SanAnMan failed to leave a comment on the discussion (only left an edit summary which many folks often miss) - they struck your vote because you can only !vote once and you already said you "disagree" with the nomination once. I did edit it to strike out just your !vote and left your comments. Missvain (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks appreciate that @Missvain Jackshere (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 17:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 01:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St Hilda Sea Adventures edit

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

WP:NCORP fail. --- Possibly (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've definitely helped the article, however now we have an article on a company with two boats in Scotland that gives tours. It's essentially a small-business advertisement. I'm not sure it meets NCORP, which is meant to require a higher standard of coverage and thus avoid Wikipedia becoming an advertising platform , which is the case here. --- Possibly (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Universities Mission Institution edit

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

Scottish Universities Mission Institution

This stub does not speak for itself and makes no claim of either general notability or organizational notability. Articles have been tendentiously created four times. The first two were deleted speedily. The third was moved to draft space. This is the fourth, and it makes no claim of notability. This does not mean that the school is notable, and it does not mean that the school is not notable. It does mean that the submitter is being disruptive by submitting articles that make no claim of notability.

The only reference is a request for applications for employment for junior faculty members. This means that the school exists. We thought it existed.

This article cannot be moved to draft space because there is already a draft, and so it needs to be deleted. The title should be ECP SALTed, so that a neutral experienced editor can either create a Start-Class article or accept a draft for a Start-Class article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As there's nothing to substantiate this as a notable topic. Just passing, extremely trivial name in school directories and a few other things that help with notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It is clear there is not a consensus to delete this article. There might be a consensus to merge this into Pleasant Hill but that consensus can be achieved through a BOLD action or through a merge discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasant Hill Historical Society Museum edit

Pleasant Hill Historical Society Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded without explanation. A non-notable local museum; fails WP:NORG. As WP:NGO notes, local organizations are notable only if they have attracted coverage outside of their geographic region. That criterion doesn't even come close to being met here: a WP:BEFORE search finds only trivial mentions in the local press. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Pleasant Hill, Missouri I would support creating an exception for museum articles like this one, but until that discussion is had it is best to merge and redirect so as to preserve the information if a separate article is not necessary.--User:Namiba 16:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 
Photo from 2016, included in article, showing expansion of the museum
  • Keep. wp:ITSAMUSEUM, an essay to which I contributed, gives the general argument: it is a public attraction, it is a museum, there will exist coverage in newspapers over the years (specific coverage not yet looked for), etc. This historical society and museum in fact was integral or at least contributing in supporting the National Register of Historic Places listing of the Pleasant Hill Downtown Historic District in 2005. The deletion nominator and other commenter were not aware of this; I just added a little about that to the article. The museum building(s) are partly comprised of pieces of historic buildings, but is not itself included in the historic district; it is adjacent at 125 Wyoming while the district includes 115 Wyoming. See map in the full NRHP nomination document version at National Archives. The museum continues to exist and has even been expanded, which itself says something about its significance, and it has an annual big fundraiser, the Pleasant Hill Railroad Days multiple-day event (with 78 vendors scheduled for the April 2021 event, though it was "with heavy hearts" cancelled for Covid https://phillrailroaddays.com/) which no doubt garners plenty of coverage. Perhaps it would be an option to cover the museum in the historic district article, but it is not part of the historic district and that would be confusing. Better to keep and develop this separate article, so that it does more fully tell the story of the development of the museum and the historical society and their roles in preserving and interpreting the history of Pleasant Hill. Including about the creation of the museum building(s), and their expansion, which surely was covered in sources at and since that time. Expand also to be about the Railroad Days event. Pleasant Hill is 20 minutes from Kansas City, and the museum and its events will be covered in regional Kansas City newspaper(s), too. --Doncram (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Pleasant Hill, Missouri per the reasoning of User:Namiba, Doncram and WP:PRESERVE. While I do not think that everything that is a tourist attraction should be kept automatically, local history museums seem particularly encyclopedic as long-lasting repositories of recorded knowledge. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably keep -- It is often useful to have articles on Tourist Attractions. At worst merge. In any event add a sentence or two on it to Pleasant Hill, Missouri#history. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom's comment – no objection to a merge on my part. But museums are not ipso facto notable, and I continue to believe that, since no NORG-qualifying coverage can be found, keeping the article would be inappropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Pleasant Hill, Missouri - I'm not seeing how this organization meets WP:GNG. Tourist attraction or not - not every tourist attraction merits inclusion in Wikipedia, same with museums. Missvain (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Pleasant Hill, Missouri. Doesn't meet GNG or NORG as stated by nom, but would be a useful addition in the article of the town where it is located and perhaps it could incubate there if notability can be discovered by experts on the topic. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I !voted "Keep" above. Others may differ, but I feel it's better to separate article on a local history museum from article of one place which it covers, and/or where it is located. This helps for categories identifying it properly, and for clearly linking from possibly multiple location articles: Pleasant Hill, Missouri (the town), Cass County, Missouri and Jackson County, Missouri (the two counties that the town straddles). I'm adding links from each of those to the existing museum article. It wouldn't help to merge this article into just one of the location articles. Sure, the article can use development, but I am sure there are plenty of local/regional materials available at the museum itself and in clippings files etc of local/regional libraries, if/when someone local chooses to expand it. Should I call the historical society and ask them to provide sources and/or develop it themselves? I couldn't imagine explaining why there can't be a separate article (if decision here goes against keeping) and how they should instead develop in at least three location articles instead. Seems best to just let this exist and be developed by the future local editor. --Doncram (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 17:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Moments edit

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

Program does not give any reason to pass the WP:GNG. It looks to have been a short-lived show in 2005. On tlwiki it redirects to a list of ABS-CBN programs. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dago dazzler edit

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

This was kept 10 years ago but as one of the discutants noted back then this is a nicely done piece of... research. So, WP:OR is a major issue, in addition to the initial nom's concern that this is a WP:DICTDEF (just beefed up with OR). Google Scholar has nothing, Google Books has a few hits but only about 15 or so with any previable content (which showcases how niche this issue is - a WP:GNG redflag). This is a rare English language term that would indeed make for a very interesting paper to be published, alas, Wikipedia is not the place to do this. The current article we have is simply a list of the uses of this rare term in some books and documents, plus a bit of OR/essay-ish speculations on its origins and meaning. PS. I found a one-sentece or so definition in [10], and another one in [11], but they don't help with the issue that this rare term pretty much fails WP:SIGCOV (WP:GNG). So all we could get after all the OR (examples and their OR analysis and other speculations) is cut is a one-two sentence stub that fails GNG... in other words, the original nom in 2010 was right on spot - this is just a DICTDEF, mixed with OR. PPS. In the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, we could perhaps add a referenced sentence to letter of credence and redirect this there? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a dictionary definition and original research.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This dictionary definition should be deleted long back. 1друг (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast Coalition for Tolerance and Non-Discrimination edit

East Coast Coalition for Tolerance and Non-Discrimination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was created by mostly single purpose accounts as a lot of the significant contributors are new accounts who have contributed to either this page or other pages that links to this page (such as the page for their founder which was since been deleted). Although paid/COI editing is not immediate grounds for deletion, this does seem like WP:PROMO and I am nominating this for article per WP:ORGIND as the only coverage not from event pages, primary sources, or other student organizations is from the same Sing Tao article in English and in Chinese. There is a brief mention in a local FOX tv station but that hardly counts towards WP:SIGCOV. BriefEdits (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It seems like it does exist and is at least somewhat notable, with a pretty expansive reach, but the article's big concern for me (aside from the good ol' complete lack of proper citations) is that promotional tone. AdoTang (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - There are a few sources, but I'm not so sure it amounts to WP:ORG. Possibly just too soon. Sounds like they're doing some good work and the founder has some good ambitions, but perhaps not yet for a Wikipedia article. There's some coverage about their activity to repeat 50-a, which is mentioned in that article to an extent likely sufficient. If people find some really good sources which provide in-depth coverage, I'd like to see them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Geoffrey Boycott. MBisanz talk 19:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Geoffrey Boycott edit

List of international cricket centuries by Geoffrey Boycott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet the minimum 25 international cut-off agreed by WP:CRIC for lists of individual international centuries. There is no chance for the player to reach the cut-off, as he is retired. Besides, to summarise the whole list and expand context, I would be happier if there were match coverage and/or match reports in place of the match scorecards in refs. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 09:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 09:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 09:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 09:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 09:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the player's article with a very selective merge, in prose form, of key achievements, the table itself is statscruft. We've been through dozens of these discussions before and the consensus has usually led to this outcome (or deleted for even less prominent players). The 'minimum 25 cut-off' thingy isn't policy, it's an arbitrary threshold that hold no real policy value. Ajf773 (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect there does seem to be some coverage about him getting 100 first-class centuries, but not about his Test match centuries. So no need for a separate list for them. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Joseph2302 and Ajf773, Won't partial merge of the article be a better option than just redirecting. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 12:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Geoffrey Boycott/redirect His test centuries don't get enough coverage for a separate list article so would support merging them into the main article. Would though support the creation of List of first-class cricket centuries by Geoffrey Boycott as his 100 hundreds do get coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 02:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kroen Group edit

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

Fairly fails to meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Possible WP:ADPROMO Asketbouncer (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Asketbouncer (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not salvable by independent sources even if we would want or need to save the article. The fairest of coverage is about an associated collection agency and even this because of an iteration before the current, Kroen-related ownership. The IT activities that this article attempts to promote are not independently covered. gidonb (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can be closed. No need to relist. This nomination was 100% justified. gidonb (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA playoff series edit

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

List of NFL playoff games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Major League Baseball postseason series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of NHL playoff series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of WNBA playoff series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A case of WP:NOTSTATS. It also duplicates information that can be found at respective teams' pages. For example, List of Milwaukee Bucks seasons (NBA), List of Los Angeles Rams seasons (NFL), List of Atlanta Braves seasons (MLB), List of Montreal Canadiens seasons (NHL), Indiana Fever#Season-by-season records (WNBA). – Sabbatino (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nothing has changed from the conversation eight years ago about the NHL article. All numbers used in the NHL article can be found by clicking on any team name here [12]. All of the subsequent articles are based off of the NHL one. I haven't verified the accuracy the MLB, NBA, NFL and WNBA articles. Deadman137 (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A link [13] to the previous review that was listed for the same reason and the article was kept. Deadman137 (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with everything that was said there. Nothing has changed since. Jmj713 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely WP:NOTSTATS. This is not a good way of presenting this information, which can be found on any number of other relevant pages. Verification is not the issue. Like Deadman137 said, all you need to do is go to the team's page to see how they've done in the playoffs. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not actually true. You cannot, at a glance, go to a team's seasons page and ascertain how they've done historically in the playoffs. You would need to pull out some spreadsheets or a calculator, at least, and potentially browse additional pages for games played against an opponent. Can you tell, at a glance, which team they're historically never beaten or have always played well against? Which team have they played the most games against? Jmj713 (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. This is a very useful overview of a league's playoff matchup history. Jmj713 (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Useful list that can be easily improved with more sources. --Yoonadue (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Exhaustive repeat of information already in each repective teams' season lists. WP:NOTSTATS is applicable, as these stats have relevance to an individual team, not as a monolithic listing for an entire league.—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is where I'm going to push back against you and the other delete votes. Please explain how these lists that utilize a set and fixed inclusion criteria are indiscriminate? Also why have none of the delete votes addressed the WP:LISTPURP issue, as all of these lists meet that criteria?
For a topic expert such as myself that knows where to find the supplemental sources I could manage future content with ease. However, anything from the past becomes much more of a time waste without these lists. As we recently saw in the just completed playoff series between the Edmonton Oilers and Winnipeg Jets relying on inexperienced editors to be able to differentiate between one relocated franchise (Arizona Coyotes previously the Jets) with the same name as an existing and separate franchise is unlikely and bound to wind up disrupting the people working on these articles. These lists do help to reduce editing conflicts when they arise. Deadman137 (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deadman137: I don't follow how certain editors being confused about incarnations of the Winnipeg Jets is solved by duplicating content already in List of Winnipeg Jets seasons and List of Winnipeg Jets (1972–96) seasons.—Bagumba (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is important and its the best place to get information on every playoff game in each of these league. You should keep them all. Vinnylospo 09:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think the nominator is misreading WP:NOSTATS as I don't see how these articles are inconsistent with it. They are readable and formatted well. Sourcing could be improved, but WP:RS should be abundant. Hocus00 (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a frequent user of this article for the NHL playoffs, I use the stats from these lists to showcase the number of series two teams have had against each other. The issue with deleting these pages would be more work to count the number of series between teams. Also, because there have been multiple relocations of teams across each of the leagues, it makes it harder for us editors to find these stats. Finally, I don't exactly see a violation of WP:NOSTATS. Perhaps it's slightly redundant with each team and their own seasons, but I feel each of these articles simplifies the process of finding how many series a team has against another team. Same with any defunct teams for that matter.Conyo14 (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seeing a lot of comments that these articles are all repeat information, which is simply not true. For example, if you want to see the history between the Los Angeles Lakers and Phoenix Suns, you would need to go to each teams' respective pages and manually find each year they have met in the playoffs via Ctrl+F or scrolling. You would also not have access to the total games, winning records, or comparisons to total matchups to other franchises. This is helpful info to have available on hand as opposed to the manually counting that would be required if the pages didn't exist. Agree that improvements could be made with sourcing, but does not justify deletion. Michaeld76 (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominating these articles for deletion is absurd. These articles collect a summary of information for each playoff series and it provides a sufficient amount of information for what readers would expect to find in a highly organized manner. And that's obviously what we want. This isn't a duplicate of information, so it's unclear why these articles have been labeled as such. The articles for the teams do not show all playoff series, they have to click on a separate article to see that individual team's season-by-season record. Note that I said season-by-season record because it shows more than just postseason results. The title of the article follows "List of teamx seasons". However, these lists of playoff series articles collect only the playoffs. So, it is in no way a duplicate of information. The way that these articles are constructed is useful. A reader can click on a team and see their playoff history supported by a beneficial legend. In addition, the articles dive in depth to show more stats and history of team A winning compared to team B winning over team A and so forth. So I don't at all see any '"copy-paste" here. Remember, this encyclopedia serves as a summary of a topic, and the playoffs for NHL, NBA, NFL, MLB, and others is definitely a topic of interest. Fizconiz (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Prior consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Longhorns football series records was the a team's itemized record listing by opponent was not notable for a standalone list. It would seem to follow that an even larger listing for an entire league—not just an individual team—would also be non-notable.—Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit disingenuous to claim that consensus was reached on one college level team when you're comparing it to four of the largest sports leagues in the world. While at the same time ignoring previous consensus that stated that these types of articles are not indiscriminate. You and I have both said our piece in this discussion, it's time that we let others have their say. Deadman137 (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
disingenuous: WP:AGF. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These do appear to violate WP:NOTSTATS, but they're also something you'd expect to find in an sports encyclopaedia, there is at least some value in including all the information in one page, and they appear fixable (by adding sourced prose.) The question, in my mind, is how to make them NOTSTATS-compliant instead of removing the information. SportingFlyer T·C 10:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for adding prose to each team's entry, briefly describing their playoff history. I am always for more information not less, and certainly not outright deleting useful information. Jmj713 (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:LISTN and WP:GNG with extensive coverage in third party articles. Inclusion of these particular list articles makes Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Notable list topics. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Michaeld76 and Fizconiz. If a reader wanted to know how many times the Montreal Canadiens have played literally any team why would you force them to go to the Montreal list of seasons and parse through 85 playoff seasons? This is a summarization from 31 (soon to be 32) lists, not a duplication of a single list such as how List of NHL overtime game sevens was. Tampabay721 (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Notable topics and useful information conveniently summarized in a single article. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 22:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Firecrafter. MBisanz talk 19:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis O. Belzer edit

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

The sources are not really indepdent of Belzer. The obituary seems to be from the organization he founded, and with his deep involvement in scouting the scouting sources here are not fully indepdent of him. A search for more sourcing found Wikipedia mirrors but no indepdent sources reflecting on Belzer's notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GenQuest "scribble" 14:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GenQuest "scribble" 14:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With a heavy heart, because Belzer should be more notable as the founder of the Firecrafter movement, but he's simply not. There's very little out there, what there is comes from scouting publications. Perhaps, at most, a redirect to Firecrafter, but I'd lean delete. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bad News Bears (franchise). Seddon talk 19:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Pollock (actor) edit

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

Fails both WP:NPOL and WP:NACTOR. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - relatively minor role in Bad News Bears and sequel(s), which are his only notable roles. There is some coverage in RS of 'Hey, this kid from Bad News Bears is running for office' but it's not enough to pass GNG. Fails NPOL and NACTOR. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 19:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1976 film or franchise - Iconic movie that has been the subject of many retrospective articles over the decades--Sports Illustrated, Fox, etc. The actors who appeared in two or all three are valid search terms. Too bad about Erin Blunt... Caro7200 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Seddon talk 19:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hand game edit

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

Article dates back to 2004, but entirely unreferenced. As a topic, it seems like it might be something that's notable, but my own searching failed to find anything on which to base a WP:GNG-conformant article. As a navigational tool, this largely duplicates both {{Hand games}} and Category:Hand games, but the three are badly out of sync. Much of this list is WP:OR, i.e. "may be considered", "most likely variations", so at best would require WP:TNT.

See Talk:Hand game for the history of deletion discussions which predate WP:AFD. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the term "hand game" comes up quite a bit in the Google Scholar search of the term referring to a wide variety of games in the category, so it's a term that's widely used by reliable sources. Among these hits are studies about hand games with autistic children and as a tool for early childhood education. There are also several lists [14][15][16][17] referring to "games played with your hands" (although the reliability of these sources may be questionable). Taken together, however, I think it's enough to pass WP:NLIST Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now given the unreferenced state. Qwaiiplayer search results are interesting, but I am not convinced the term is defined properly anywhere. And if it is, WP:TNT is really likely the solution here - blow up the current unreferenced OR stub/list, with no prejudice to this being recreated with proper sources etc. Ping me if as rewrite/sourcing happens during this AfD and I'll reconsider my vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • State of the article really isn't a deletion criteria. Hobit (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep sources have been shown to exist and I think this has the potential to be a really good article. [18] for example looks very very good.[19] is also strong (though I'm unclear exactly what part of Dartmouth is publishing this). This one looks like fun actually. Hobit (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hobit, Your first link gets me "Server Error in '/' Application." when I click on it. :-( -- RoySmith (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • RoySmith Me too now, was there this morning. [20] is a text-only cached version. I assume it will be back up sometime soon. Main page works... Hobit (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 17:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It seems from the sources presented here, as well as the list of games currently in this article, that there is a lot of crossover with Clapping games as a topic - that article even uses "hand game" as an alternate title for the concept. It seems like some sort of merging or restructuring of the articles to cover them under one topic might make sense, though I am not sure what the best way to go about it would be. At the very least, the non-notable (i.e. non-blue linked) entries should be removed right away, as well as all of the entries here that clearly fail the criteria of being "played using only the hands of the players". Rorshacma (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's fair to say that clapping games are a subset of hand games. A well-written article on the topic would have section on clapping games but mostly defer to the clapping games article on that issue. Games like Chopsticks (game) would have a similar treatment. It looks like there is a fair bit out there about the impact on socialization of these types of games. So that too could be a nice section. I do worry that the coverage of clapping games and other hand games *as a single thing* may be limited. But I suspect we've got enough to get a good or featured article out of this. Hobit (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are lots publications on hand games in ethnomusicology and music education literature. Hand games of a variety of cultures are taught in general music classrooms, and their are curriculum books and materials on that literature in addition to many scholarly publications. A gooogle books search and google scholar search can easily identify sources of quality to meet WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I added four sources and slightly expanded the article. A lot more could be written on this topic.4meter4 (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is also some sort of directory page as it has listed many hand games that have Wiki pages. Peter303x (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  JGHowes  talk 02:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Siene Allwell-Brown edit

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

Vanity piece on a non-notable business or media person or lawyer (not quite sure which is the claim to fame). The sources cited are all primary, and a search finds nothing of substance, just a few passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - prominent Nigerian newscaster and style-icon in the 1980s. Quite a few sources on Google Books. Profile on Massmediang (not self-published), multi-page profile in the African Guardian from 1988 [21], entry in Nigerian Women's Annual from 1990 [22] Furius (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Siene Allwell-Brown is a highly recognized figure in Africa. Her influence spans across many sectors and industries in Nigeria. None of the references used in the article is self published as you have wrongly assumed. DoubleGrazing Did you take time to go through the various articles about her on the search result pages of Google? TJO28 (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TJO28: "highly recognized figure" is not really a notability criterion, though. And yes, I did conduct a BEFORE search, of course, as mentioned in my nomination; the problem was, while there are mentions of her, none of them seems to satisfy the sicgov requirements of WP:GNG. And just for the record, I didn't say anything about "self published"; I tagged the article for primary sources, but that's different. In any case, since you're the article creator, please feel absolutely free to add any references that you think demonstrate notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per rationale by Furius. An entry in Africa Who's Who means that subject passes ANYBIO. TheSokks(talk) 08:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please provide an actual citation? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. Nigerian Women Annual: Who's Who. Benin City: Gito & Associates. 1990. p. 64. ISSN 0795-7807. TheSokks(talk) 16:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; that's rather my point. 'Nigerian Women Annual' is not quite 'Africa Who's Who', is it? In any case, I don't think that publication meets the description of "a country's standard national biographical dictionary", per WP:ANYBIO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The full title says "Nigerian Women Annual: Who's Who". By definition, a Who's who is a compilation of brief biographical sketches of prominent persons in a particular field. TheSokks(talk) 19:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. WP:SIGCOV isn’t met and the sources used in the article are lackluster at best. The first source used in the article lacks editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking, and clearly indicates that they are a web blog, same with the second source used, have no reputation for fact checking, the third source is medium.com obviously very unreliable and the fourth and last source used are yet to develop a reputation for fact checking and do not have editorial oversight. So @TJO28 it does appear that DoubleGrazing indeed carried out a before. Lastly, Questioning if the nom (especially if they are trusted with very sensitive user right such as NPR) carried out a before search is not only condescending and rude but it is not assuming good faith on your part. Celestina007 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if the online sources aren't adequate, that doesn't neutralise the various published offline sources. WP:OFFLINE, if we're throwing WP:ACRONYMs around. My assumption looking at this is that Allwell-Brown is notable for her activities in the 1980s, not for her activities since. If the weighting of the article is wrong that is something to be corrected by editing, not deletion. Furius (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Furius, “if the weighting”? I’m sorry do you mean wording? I choose to believe you meant wording. Furious thank you for your contributions. Although I do not appreciate neither do I think your snarky responses to me are fair, but all the same thank you for your contributions. my !vote remains unchanged. Do have a nice week ahead. Celestina007 (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Weighting" as in the amount of weight that the article gives to Allwell-Brown's activities in the 1980s vs the amount of weight that is given to her activities since. I'm sorry for the bit about acronyms and you can vote however you like, but you haven't explained why you don't think the offline sources are relevant. Furius (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Furius, thanks for the clarification, unfortunately GNG requires in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of them. The offline sources are simply not “multiple”. At this juncture and as is customary I believe we just leave the rest to the community and let us observe how it plays out. Celestina007 (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — After close observation, the article appears to be an WP:ADMASQ and a very good one too I might add. An untrained eye would definitely miss it. If you read the article closely, you’d see it’s an attempt to (a) create awareness for her law firm and (b) showcase and advertise her qualifications and achievements, which all fall under WP:SPAM and what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Celestina007 (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I have taken time out to clean up the article; removed unreliable sources and added new ones I found. Snippets from google books suggest that more coverage exists and she was notable for her work on NTA and as we know, notability is not temporary. Kind regards TheSokks(talk) 00:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 17:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Lu edit

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

Got some minor coverage regarding her receipt design, but that would come under WP:BIO1E, and not enough to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 02:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a stretch to call her an artist, as I see no shows, reviews or collections. In terms of accomplishments, there is the receipt design and there is the creation of a tool for choosing colour combinations (there are a lot of these around). All the coverage on the receipt project is derived from one article on Fast Company. For Viz Palette, the colour picker, I see another Fast Company article, some items on Medium and multiple unreliable blogs. It is a bit above run of the mill, but not enough for GNG.--- Possibly (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe this meets notability. I just edited the article to add additional sources supporting the receipt design project (now at least 5 outside sources), as well as another project of hers on annotations for d3.js (3 sources). There are also 3 sources for the color palette project. There are clearly multiple, reliable, independent sources about this subject. AmeliaMN (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • AmeliaMN, it's not just the number of sources, but how in-depth they are about Lu, not her project. Onel5969 TT me 17:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Onel5969 I just added a reference to the interview and feature of her work in Scott Murray (author)'s book (preview available on Amazon if you want to see the feature). Does that help?
  • Delete The coverage is mostly based on fastcompany, and then recycled by boingboing, clark.com, ubergizmo, tincture and globalnerdy. Elijah Meeks (her colleague) using her illustrations does not do much for notability. What her alma mater has to say about her also doesn't. It is unclear to me if she's known for her work at Netflix, but it seems that both she works on internal visualization products. There seem to be three things she might be known for, the receipt redesign, the D3.js annotation library and the VizPalette.If we want to write about an innovation like the redesign of a receipt, it's designer might be notable if it is widely adopted. Something like the QR code for example. But we don't even have an article on Masahiro Hara. If the VizPalette and the d3-annotation had been widely adopted or somehow influential, I have yet to see any evidence of that. Vexations (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vexations I would definitely support an article about Masahio Hara! I'm not sure that the absence of an article is good evidence about a notability bar, particularly as I can't see any past discussion about removing an article about him. I think that Wu has had an influence on the data visualization community, which seems like enough to me. Does everyone on Wikipedia have to have had a global influence like the QR code? I think the feature of Wu in Scott Murray's book (Interactive Data Visualization for the Web: An Introduction to Designing with D3) helps make the case about her being influential. You can search on Google Books and see previews of the pages she is mentioned on, or Amazon has a fuller preview in the Search Inside. AmeliaMN (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • AmeliaMN, I see that her colleague, Elijah Meeks has included a chapter, Susie Lu Senior Data Visualization Engineer that is not about her, but about a d3 library; d3-svg-legend. [[Scott Murray (author)|Murray, in Interactive Data Visualization for the Web, 2nd Edition interviews her about a "personal project" and mentions her d3-annotation: "A module for painlessly implementing visual annotations in D3 by Susie Lu" ( I have full access BTW, no need for snippet previews). For a biography, there's not much material that we can use to say something meaningful about her. Even if I feel that we can leave out some personal details, we don't have any basic biographical information, like date/place of birth, early life and most of education,. Her professional work is not public and it is not clear to me that she has made influential contributions to her field. I'll note that our notability guideline is just that, a guideline, not policy and the notion of what a "notable" person is highly problematic and often skewed against women. But even the idea that Murray interviewing her is worth mentioning is flawed: If a source discusses a subject, the encyclopedic thing to do is paraphrase what that source says, not say: "Subject was featured by so-and-so". That's expected, it's not in itself notable that a source discusses a subject. But even when taking that into account, and leaving aside the lack of biographical data, we ought to consider what the impact is of Lu's contributions and what can we say about that. Going by what I've found so far, I don't think there's much we can say. Vexations (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been expanded and references have tripled, should be given another look.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Explicit (dare I say it) explicitly notes, references have tripled since the AFD nomination was filed. It would be foolish and unwise to delete this article, as recent updates have proven the subject's notability. Sean Stephens (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • AmeliaMN has significantly improved the article, so well done to her for such great work. Sean Stephens (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 17:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm being bold and relisting this one more time. What do folks think of the article expansion per User:AmeliaMN?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - while the effort is appreciated, the same underlying issues apply. Onel5969 TT me 19:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nom, Possibly and Vexations, and per WP:BASIC, including footnote 5, which discusses 'intellectual independence' - the six sources repeating information reported by Fast Company might contribute to notability if they were 'partial derivatives,' but only if they are reliable sources, which as non-academic, non-news-outlet blogs, they are not. And Fast Company reports, "she doesn’t have plans to take the project any further." There are also two interviews published by her alma mater, links to her own website, a brief mention of the Viz Palette tool in an academic journal (PLOS, 2020), a review of the tool by Fast Company, a brief mention of a 2017 tool from the Scientific American blog, an interview with Data Viz Today, a brief mention in a reproduced blog post by an author claiming no expertise, a brief mention of her cartoons, two Medium posts, a blog briefly mentioning a chart she made and her cartoons, and an e-book written by a college instructor that I cannot access. From my view, WP:BASIC requires more than this, even though it allows the combination of multiple independent and reliable sources "if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial"; most sources do not appear to be independent and/or reliable, and most of the independent and reliable sources I have reviewed do not offer much more than trivial mentions. Beccaynr (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Beccaynr.4meter4 (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. There is consensus that this is not a notable topic needing a standalone article. No prejudice to doing a merge into the list or changing the redirect target. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Quartararo edit

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

This article has been included in bundled nominations for deletion twice before. My BEFORE search failed to find adequate coverage in independent reliable sources, only passing mentions, so I think a merge with or redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters might be appropriate. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to be a relatively minor character in the series, to the point where his real name of "Alex Quartararo" was never even mentioned within the show itself. I searched for sources under both that name, as well as "Crashdown", the name he was actually exclusively referred to in the show, and did not find much outside of plot summaries of the episodes he appeared in, as well as mentions of it being one of the roles performed by the actor that portrayed him. I suppose I would not be opposed to a Merge to List of Battlestar Galactica characters, but due to the lack of sourcing and minor status of the character within the franchise, I don't think that's really necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the character list, as I have also been unable to find remotely significant coverage of this character. Jclemens (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the character list, nothing to merge really. Fails GNG. Is it time to clean up a bit of the BG fancruft? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The issue with just Redirecting is that the character is not actually currently included on the character list, so a Merge would have to occur for the redirect to make sense. That's why I leaned towards Deletion - a merge would have to happen to integrate them into the character list, and it does not look like the character was notable enough to warrant that. Though, as a thought, would it make sense to Redirect to the filmography section of the actor that portrayed the character as an alternative? Rorshacma (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not opposed to a merge of a sentence of two, assuming they appeared in more than two episodes. Are they a recurring character? If they only appeared in a single episode, can redirect to that episode, assuming it's notable and exists. Some BG episodes are notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 02:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Acree edit

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Lacks enough significant coverage to establish notability. 4meter4 (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the article lacks the secondary sources that are 100% needed to show a high school football coach was notable. If this article is kept than everyone who has ever been head coach at any of the 10,000 high school football programs in the US will get an article. Down that road lies madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some sources (tbh I think when I created the article in 2007, most of the content came out of Pigskin Pulpit, but I don't have a copy anymore so I can't verify). Acree probably doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH since he was only a minor role player in the 1950s juggernaut Oklahoma Sooners teams, but I would argue that his notability as a high school football coach is sufficient; he coached the team that won Corsicana's lone state championship 58 years ago, for which they put up a life-sized statue of him. --bender235 (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources added by me and bender235. Also, a search of '"Jim Acree" coach' brings up 2,176 results on Newspapers.com. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of the sources currently in the article ([23]):
    1. is a local publication and mostly focused on quoting tributes from former students
    2. is the same local publication and seems even less independent of the subject than the other (quoting him, too)
    3. is reporting on the statue, not the coach, giving only very little material which could be used to write a biography
    4. same local pub. as 1 and 2; not significant coverage of the coach (he's only namechecked - you could replace his name with "John Doe" and everything else would literally not change at all)
    5. can't access so no comment on the coverage, but [[Arcadia Publishing] focuses on local interest publications so I'm not sure this would be that significant. The book seems to be mostly focused on the town itself, anyways
    6. an interview
    7. routine local news coverage, including quoting the subject. Likely not significant overage
    8. Only a very short article, the coach is only namechecked
    9. local publication, likely the closest to significant coverage of all the available sources, but it seems very routine to me
  • Therefore, the subject does not appear to meet WP:SIGCOV with the current sources, and there's nothing that indicates he has significant and enduring notability outside of the local town. Some of the coverage would not be included in an article anyway, as its WP:NOTNEWS RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the WP:GNG guidelines there is no difference between local or national sources. So it’s not fair to state because that local sources are not counting towards notability. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    According to GNG, sources need to be independent of the subject (which is dubious for some of these local sources), and WP:SPORTBASIC also tells that this is a concern to be taken into account. There are plenty of local youth football coaches. If they only get coverage in local sources whose independence is hard to establish, it likely is the case that they aren't noteworthy. Additionally, per GNG, the coverage needs to be significant: much of the coverage is also very routine, so that doesn't help. I stand by my analysis. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The way things work is that even if an article meets WP:GNG, that doesn't mean we automatically include it: it also has to get through WP:NOT. WP:NOTNEWS stands for the principle that routine coverage can't make someone notable, and what we have here so far is routine coverage. We also have WP:YOUNGATH which excludes the majority of youth sports coverage - while he wasn't a youth athlete, he was a youth coach. Otherwise we'd have thousands of articles on youth sports coaches! There's no reason why we can't include him in the article on the high school which erected a statue of him, so I'd support a partial merge and redirect there. SportingFlyer T·C 20:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt that there is "thousands" of youth coaches who have received the kind of coverage Acree has. How many high school coaches get statues made of them? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not typically include articles on youth sports coaches in the encyclopaedia, especially if like Acree they don't achieve any sort of notability outside the area where they coach. I agree with RandomCanadian's source analysis, and note that hits on newspapers.com are not necessarily indicative of notability as over half of them were to his town's local paper. He also appears to be neither a notable assistant coach nor a notable college player - a couple articles I've found describe him as a reserve. Interestingly, he was on the collegiate boxing team, the first time I've ever heard of one... SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG, coverage in multiple independent sources. ( According to the GNG guidelines it doesn’t matter if it’s a local source.) SportsOlympic (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. RandomCanadian and SF's analyses are spot-on. Plenty of high school coaches receive the level of routine local coverage Acree has; that doesn't mean any of them are notable. GNG also isn't an automatic pass for article creation. JoelleJay (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is all the coverage just, routine? Calling this all routine is like saying: "Oh yeah its so common that over 15 different newspapers will write articles about a high school coach., or, its common that school coaches are called 'legendary' by the top newspaper in the state capital (the state that's produced the most football players), or finally, its just routine that statues will be made of coaches at just the youth level." Also, if GNG isn't a pass for creation, then what is? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That obituary was in the "obituaries" section, and as it was not clearly written by a staff writer, was likely supplied by a family member (and therefore not independent.) SportingFlyer T·C 17:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad M. Mansour edit

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

Biography created by an account that is apparently the subject himself. Unfortunately, he does not appear to meet our notability requirements. User:Praxidicae has twice redirected it to RiseUp Summit, but the subject/creator has reverted this. A protected redirect is probably the best solution. RL0919 (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RL0919 (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and not meeting WP:BIO. Information is not notable for the most part, and even the part about the Queen is only sourced to a couple of blogs (I couldn't find any WP:RS to supplement). No objection to a redirect to RiseUp Summit. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable coverage. 192.76.8.87 (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia at the 2022 Winter Olympics edit

Colombia at the 2022 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Way too soon for this. Colombia has also NOT qualified for the games as of yet. No sources indicate the country will be competing either. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 17:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Games are in 8 months. Qualification is solidly under way. Don't see any point to deleting this only for it to be recreated soon. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the source says they have a quota of atheletes to compete, some of them being named. Worst case, redirect to the main Winter Games article, and expand when more info is known. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  JGHowes  talk 02:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disaggregated sovereignty edit

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

This is not a widespread term. It is a term used exclusively (or almost exclusively) by one author who coined it, similar to WP:NEO. I see no evidence that the topic meets WP:GNG. DePRODed by User:Andrew Davidson without any explanation as per usual. Rusf10 (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a term used only by the person who created it, and does not have enough independent coverage for inclusion. Angryapathy (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice how "Angryapathy" claims that only one person uses this term but doesn't say who that is. {{citation needed}}. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Anne-Marie Slaughter is quite notable as a respectable author, academic and lawyer and so her work on this topic has attracted attention. This is not a reason to delete anything. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google NGRAM demonstrates the term has increasing use; also not clear that A-M Slaughter is the first or only person to use the term. Slaughter co-authored pieces in 1996 and 1998 with Walter Mattli which use the term.[1][2] Google indicates the term appears in a 1989 text (republished 1991), but I do not have access to confirm.[3]

References

  1. ^ Mattli, Walter; Slaughter, Anne-Marie (1998). "Revisiting the European Court of Justice". International Organization. 52 (1): 177–209. ISSN 0020-8183.
  2. ^ Mattli, Walter; Slaughter, Anne-Marie (1996). Constructing the European Community Legal System from the Ground Up: The Role of Individual Litigants and National Courts. European University Institute. p. 7.
  3. ^ Hamlin, Alan P.; Pettit, Philip (1991). The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State. Basil Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-18088-3.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Euphoria (compilations). (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Euphoria edit

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

Unsourced, fails notability guidelines. Has already been PRODded, with the dePROD rationale on the talk page being that it has a fanbase and was mentioned in this article by 'TranceFarm', which doesn't seem like a reliable source and it is a very passing mention. I was unable to find any reliable sources to incorporate. Waxworker (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Euphoria (compilations). This album reached number two on the UK Compilation Albums chart [24] and has a gold certification from the BPI [25]. It's true that the Euphoria series were popular and big-selling albums to fans of trance music. But I really don't see the point of having entries for individual albums in a compilation series if we can't add any prose about them – I feel that very few compilation albums are individually notable. I think we'd be better off adding the chart positions and certifications to the main article, which is already essentially just a list of all the albums in the series anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Richard3120 reasoning. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 20:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz bin Abdullah Al-Rubaie edit

Abdulaziz bin Abdullah Al-Rubaie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not feel like the subject is notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article. I also see that the article is written just for the purpose for adding a non-notable person to Wikipedia. I vote Delete because this person does not fit the criteria for biographies about journalists. What are his works? What has he done to change the workplace, and what are his achievements. If these are found, then I will instead vote keep. Cheers, AbsoluteSpaceTime (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article is rambling at the moment but the lede does seem sufficient to at least assert notability: "He is one of the main founders of Al-Jazirah newspaper, and he is the first editor-in-chief of Al-Jazirah magazine". I don't speak Arabic so it's hard for me to judge the sources, but if Google Translate is to be trusted it does seem that there are multiple independent sources discussing him per WP:GNG, and seemingly there are entries for him in biographical dictionaries on Google Books. I had to fiddle with Wikidata since the two articles hadn't been linked but there's an Arabic Wikipedia article for him which has more info and mentions that he also worked as a diplomatic representative. Keeping this as "weak" anyway until a native/fluent speaker can judge the sources. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 11:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above discussion. I copyedited it. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is narrowly in favour of deletion; if anyone wants to restore this article (or to draft), ping me and I'll look into it. Such a shame Flyer22 is no longer around to work on this :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melolagnia (arousal) edit

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

I have been uinable to find this term in actual use. I can find definitions in various dictionaries, and the word being used as a title of a piece of music, but I do not think the referneces establish this as an actual concept suitable for an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I was literally nominating this at the same time. This fails WP:GNG and WP:MEDRS, as is evident from the poor sources used here (BuzzFeed listicle, really...) and the lack of anything substantive for "melolagnia" on Google Scholar. Crossroads -talk- 23:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey. I made some improvements to the article. Is it now acceptable by Wikipedia's policies? Would you now re-consider you stance on the issue? Best regards. --Pek~enwiki (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry but no; the sources you have added are unreliable as well, and the only one that at first glance may seem reliable, the book by Adele Bertei, is not significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. Crossroads -talk- 04:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again. I'v made even more improvements. What do you think about this article now? Is it still badly sourced? Best regards. --Pek~enwiki (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. See Vaticidalprophet's comment below. Crossroads -talk- 04:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Glad Pek wants to improve the article, but I'm unconvinced this is improvable. It's poorly cited and says a lot of things that are pretty questionable to say in wikivoice (e.g. the Shakespeare thing). I'm unsympathetic, as a class, to low-quality articles on trivial and possibly nonexistent psychological phenomena, because they get picked up by pop-psych reusers and misused. Vaticidalprophet 16:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I'm trying to find good sources, but it's really hard. I'v now added some more sources and content, but I'm not sure if they are good enough. What do you think? Best regards. --Pek~enwiki (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Fixed the formatting of this reply, which was given to the deletion-sorts by accident; revert if procedurally unwanted.) The issue I see here is, as you say, it's really hard to find good sources -- and that leads to that they don't exist. Niche psychology stubs, unlike a lot of niche stubs, are actually dangerous, in that they get reused and citogenesis-ed by pop-psych sources in ways that mislead the population about psychology. A psych article for a neologism sourced to Sparknotes, a dictionary, listicles, and one line in a book about "getting your Fifty Shades on" is an article that can mislead people. There are subjects where my reaction to 'weak' sourcing is "Honestly, this is fine, you're overreacting", but this isn't one of them. Vaticidalprophet 12:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. While vote counting makes this look like a 5-1 keep, when you take into account that two keep votes are straight out of WP:AADD the other 3 are weak keeps, while the one delete asserts that it fails notability guidelines, it becomes a fairly clear no consensus. (non-admin closure) Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fencer of Minerva edit

Fencer of Minerva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently restored PROD. I have searched and confirmed this exists and that's where the information stopped for me. This seems to be a case of WP:OR about a straight to DVD series that does not meet WP:GNG McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was the one to PROD this originally, and I was unable to find any reliable sources to add. Entirely unsourced, fails notability guidelines. Waxworker (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. o Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. o Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indecisive -- I think there probably could be an acceptable article on this, but that's not the current article, which consists almost entirely of unreferenced plot summaries and dramatis personae (more suitable to a fan wiki than Wikipedia). AnonMoos (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indecisive -- I would like to familiarize myself with the deletion policy, hear more discussion and see if there are other options. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There is the short review in this book: The Anime Encyclopedia, 3rd Revised Edition: A Century of Japanese Animation from Stone Bridge Press by Jonathan Clements and Helen McCarthy. The book calls itself an encyclopedia, but it is not very famous (Scholar indicates zero citations...). And the entry, while going beyond a pure summary, doesn't strike me as serious scholarship (the tone and style reads like a newspaper or fanzine review, not scholarly at all). So it's a good start, if I say so myself, but I don't think this single entry in this low-tier "encyclopedia" (really, a summary of middling reviews, not a scholarly work) is sufficient to keep this. Nothing on Scholar. I couldn't find any review in anything remotely reliable. As usual, there may well be stuff in Japanese, but we need someone fluent in this language to do the search. Ping me if better sources are found and I'll reconsider my vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found this review from Mania. Link20XX (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both are the same review by the same author so one is a reprint. Generally one review is not enough to pass the threshold of WP:NFILM or WP:SIGCOV but it helps if more could be found. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After doing some more searching, I found this Anime News Network article that is partially about it. Though between the one review, and the entry in The Anime Encyclopedia, I lean more to Weak Keep. Link20XX (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging for more sources. The last one is but a press release and so pretty useless. The first two, or one (copy) are from some old fanzine, although the review is actually much better written then the one I found "in reliable print source". Still, online fanzines are, well, fanzines. We are really scraping the barrel here. I'd really like to vote keep, but... sigh, still no Japanese reader to do any search for Japanese reviews? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment JA wiki, IMDB, and the AnimeNewsNetwork wiki attributes the studio partially to J.C.Staff, which could be a valid redirect target, if a RS confirming that is found (for the record, I couldn't find one). Jumpytoo Talk 01:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems to be the article no one really wants to delete, but it appears available sourcing is weak. Relisting this to allow more time to locate substantial independent, reliable sources, as discussion indicates these "ought" to exist. Also extending discussion to explore alternatives to deletion such as MERGE or the most appropriate redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If proper sourcing cannot be found, perhaps it could be redirected to Central Park Media, since they distributed it? Link20XX (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per my comments above. The book mention is reliable but meh quality, then we have a fanzine/niche portal review of better quality. That's is grasping at the lowest GNG treshold, and maybe meeting it, maybe not... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and struck your previous Weak Delete just to not confuse things. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mariner Software edit

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

The topic company fails WP:NCORP requirements. References can be found for the software but none provide in-depth information and Independent Content on the topic company as required by WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND HighKing++ 12:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 12:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article with a history of WP:SPA edits. The article text and references are effectively a list of their software lines. Searches find announcement-based coverage of past acquisitions (e.g. [26]) and the use of the company as an example in an article on teleworking [27], but I am not seeing the level of coverage of the firm itself needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 20:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority edit

Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just simply not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show that it passes either WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Would have redirected, but there doesn't seem to be a good target. Onel5969 TT me 14:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major regional fire department with plenty of news sourcing per the above links--not just incidents they participated in, but things like personnel changes and the like. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject might be notable over time, but its formation failed to generate coverage from major local news sources. As it stands, it can be merged into the articles of the respective member cities. SounderBruce 02:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jclemens -- Epluribusunumyall (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regional Fire Authorities are generally notable and there is significant coverage. Rathfelder (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on above arguments and there is lots of news mentions. Peter303x (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.4meter4 (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Flowers: The Movie edit

The House of Flowers: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable future film, fails WP:NFF. Looks to not be notable enough once released as well, should be merged and redirected into The House of Flowers (TV series). Donaldd23 (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The film and the TV show are separate, such a merge would be highly inappropriate considering that each of the TV show's seasons have their own articles, as does a (more closely-related) previous spin-off TV movie. I already explained this, so it just looks like you have some inexplicable vendetta against this article existing. If you want to delete because it's FUTURE, like I said, it's going to be released in less than two weeks, what would the point be to have a delete on record when it's recreated so soon afterwards? Kingsif (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability seems to be established, and whilst I do not think it would be completely far-fetched to draftify it until release, I do think two weeks is a short period, and draftifying it for such a short while would be rather odd. Anonymous 7481 (talk)
  • Keep. The existence of this article is in line with customary Wikipedia practices. Notability seems to be tentatively established. Shooting has already wrapped and the film is set to be released barely 10 days from now. I am missing production details, but that circumstance is not a compelling deletion rationale.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Min Min (character) edit

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

Non-notable video game character. Article fails WP:SIGCOV as the reception sources are a WP:REFBOMB and all are of poor quality, either based on listicles or individual sentence snippets from reviews. That is not how notability is demonstrated, references must be both secondary and significant. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I'm reading right, it kind of looks like IPs keep publishing it without the consent of the original writer? I've had that happen to myself before too, on drafts that sat unpublished a long time because it took a long time to confirm notability. Might be best to Draftify and WP:SALT until it's ready. It's probably close. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She got WP:SIGCOV when she was released as DLC for Super Smash Bros Ultimate (e.g. [28][29][30][31][32]). The REFBOMB is an issue for the article, but I still think the character is notable as part of the Ultimate roster with significant coverage as such. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of those are just simple announcements about her reveal for being in Smash Bros. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to meet WP:SIGCOV with [33], [34], [35], [36], and [37]. There is some bad sources in here, but a lot of good sources. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of those sources are either marked as unreliable or situational/iffy at WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kotaku's source is fully valid and is not situational, The Escapist's source meets the criteria laid out on WP:VG/S. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, so that would still make it "most", as I said. Just pointing out that you did not in fact supply five reliable sources, as people who didn't look closely may have missed otherwise. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • A single significant Kotaku article is not enough for the article to pass GNG. I don't believe the other sources are reliable. Again, a WP:REFBOMB is insufficient compared to real sources.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A few sources specifically vetted as unreliable in the article could be removed, development needs copy editing for grammar and better presentation. But, these are editorial concerns. Otherwise, it's fine and per WP:NEXIST, the cited sourcing meets the threshold for WP:GNG in my opinion. The article does not revolve around WP:GAMECRUFT or WP:GAMEGUIDE material. Commentary on her appearance for Smash has been punctuated with WP:RSOPINION so they are not mere routine announcements. Haleth (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think this is enough: [38], [39], [40]. There is a bit more, but overal enough non-social media writeups to squeeze through GNG requirement. Feel free to ping me if you want to argue those soruces are bad. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: For the reason, see WP:VG/S. GameRant and EventHubs are both unreliable sources, as determined by editors of the VG Wikiproject.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an ongoing discussion about the reliability of Game Rant here, and the emerging consensus isn't as clear cut as you are suggesting, with more editors currently leaning towards it being reliable. It still isn't a high quality source in my opinion, but this discussion is an AfD and not a GA/FA review, Game Rant isn't a self-published social media outlet, and this article isn't a BLP, so there is no hard and fast rule here where the source can be conclusively discounted from being WP:RSOPINION. Back to the topic before us, Nintendo Life, Destructoid, The Escapist and Screenrant are all sources cited in the article which count towards WP:GNG. Haleth (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, but I think GameRant is so-so. Depends on the article, this one doesn't seem to bad. We also have Kotaku, and The Escapist, which are reliable, but the latter seems one of their lower quality pieces. For now I am still in the "weak keep" camp, the sources are not the best, but I think they are enough to make this borderline notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or redirect: I would only consider Kotaku and Destructoid as significant coverage. That is not adequate enough to justify a full article. OceanHok (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My rule of thumb is that two sources meet the bare minimum GNG requires ("multiple"). Two is "multiple"... isn't it? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus:Usually only 3 counts as multiple, see WP:3SOURCES. Only if the two sources are incredibly indepth can you say that notability is proven by them alone.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That...is an essay reflecting an editor’s personal interpretation and opinion on standards concerning quantity of sources, which can be anywhere from 2 to 10 or even dozens of sources, and no offense intended, but I don't believe the author is an administrator or even a highly influential or respected editor. There is no clear and unambiguous guideline vetted by community consensus on exactly how many sources are needed to meet the hypothetical threshold of GNG for fictional topics, like for example WP:NBOOK which is an actual guideline, and I should point out that it was purposefully kept ambiguous and open to interpretation. Haleth (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Arms (video game). Cover any necessary character traits in context in the Gameplay section; cover the character's subsequent usage in other Nintendo games in the Legacy section. The sources mentioned above are very low quality if not outright unreliable, falling short of the GNG. It's an absolute stretch to call this topic independently notable when everything that has been written on this topic can easily fit within the parent article. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 02:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It might needed copy edit and etc. Kotaku and Destrctoid would be probably barely enough, but these 2 sources might be worth adding. Director Kosuke Yabuki recommended Min Min to be the ARMS representative in Smash Bros. Even when it appears that Spring Man was protagonist on ARMS, the director further stated that every character is ARMS' protagonist [41]. David L. Craddock of Shacknews claimed that Min Min his favorite ARMS character, stating that it also reminds him of the gaming term “min-max,” and he claimed that he never thought of min-min-ing until Min-Min’s addition to the Smash roster [42]. 180.194.151.145 (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think there is just enough about coverage about the character to scrape WP:GNG, but a marginal one.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Himani Sahani edit

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

References do not show the notability of the subject. Previously moved to draft. Republish without fixing the issue. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR GermanKity (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Umakant Bhalerao, i just looked at your comment that indicates the subject is CORP. Well WP:NCORP does not apply here.GermanKity (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • GermanKity, Yes, you're right. I meant to type NACTOR, but i typed NCORP by accident. Thanks for noticing and letting me know! Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - minor roles so fails WP:NACTOR and no evidence of significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not follows all the guidelines & norms. The sources used are not trustworthy.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete removed bad and duplicate sources. There is bunch of news on her, but still don't see anything significant. Peter303x (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Tourism in Azerbaijan. MBisanz talk 20:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani medical tourism edit

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

There is no indication that this is notable as a distinct topic other than what is already covered in Tourism in Azerbaijan It's also a magnet for fringe claims, but that could be fixed without deletion. Guy Macon (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Despite the current content of the article, which makes no real claim to notability of the concept itself, this does seem to be a topic that's been discussed significantly in some regional English-language sources - [43] and [44] being two examples I found that discuss the actual topic in some depth. But unless someone actually wants to develop some content for this article that takes advantage of this, the current article is so poor that it's not going to be much of a starting point. I would honestly lean towards deleting it simply because it's better to have no article than one this bad, given it just encourages fringe additions and there's been minimal interest in really improving it. ~ mazca talk 15:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, per Mazca. the article could be recreated later on by someone interested in the subject, with real factual content instead of promoting fringe non-MEDRS content. - Kevo327 (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Tourism in Azerbaijan.--NMW03 (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Tourism in Azerbaijan.4meter4 (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada edit

List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It doesn't seem realistic that places like Acadia, Toronto, Cape Breton, North Ontario, and all these proposed provinces have a chance of ever getting created, put to a referendum, or even having a formal discussion/proposed bill among a ruling party in the parliament or local legislatures. Even more so ideas like joining the maritime provinces. Ideas of Scotland, Iceland, and US states seem almost like a not even an idea but some ridiculous thoughts that a group of a just few people had. While many countries continue to create new administrative divisions (like Algeria created 10 new provinces in 2019) and Wikipedia has an article about proposed administrative divisions for India, Philippines, Pakistan, and a few other countries, Canada has very strict policies that make it very difficult to create territories and even more so provinces. That is because Canadian provinces and territories just like American or German states are very autonomous territories where the national government's governance is limited. They also have so much historical and cultural value. On the other hand most countries administrative divisions (like Algeria, Tunisia, Philippines, Turkey, Vietnam) are created mainly or solely for the purpose of subdivision and being local stations that help the job of the countries' federal governments. Such countries local governments don't have the right to pass laws of their own, reject most laws or bills the federal government's passes, have serious criminal trials in circuit courts, don't have semi federal courts and prisons, and many more local rights that for example Canadian provinces, American states, German states, Swiss cantons and few other countries local divisions, have the right to. Therefore in such countries the creation of administrative divisions is very easy and are often created without any referendums or widely supported movements who call for a creating a new administrative division. Creating new provinces and territories in Canada, would require huge support from the locals, formal and strong provincehood/territoryhood movements that have active for years and years, large support from a ruling party or powerful opposition party, and years and years of negotiations, which none of these proposed provinces and territories have. They would also require to be based of the areas cultural and historical differences from the rest of the province/territory. Creating a new province or territory in Canada (as in creating for example a new state in the US) is extremely expensive as they build a new legislative and provincial/territorial law court headquarters building (Canadian/American legislature buildings/top provincial or state court buildings are usually grand marble or limestone palaces), a residence for the lieutenant governor, whole force of provincial/territorial police/other essential forces and services, and setting up a huge system of semi-federal government and judiciary. Most of these proposed Canadian provinces and territories are ideas that a very tiny group of people and politicians mentioned once or several times. And most of these politicians with these ideas are from parties that have near zero votes in both local and even more so federal elections. The only exemptions to these nearly impossible chances of having these areas become provinces/territories are Labrador, Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, National Capital Territory, and St. Pierre and Miquelon. The province of Newfoundland and Labrador is sort of like 2 separate divisions under one provincial government and Labrador has it's own flag and coat of arms. That is why it would make sense that Labrador would want to become separate someday. For Nunatsiavut and Nunavik it is because these regions are mainly inhabited by the indigenous population and therefore have their own culture and because of the strong demand for more indigenous rights and autonomy. It would for the same reasons Nunavut separated from NWT in 1999. As for a National Capital Territory, the reason would be most countries do separate their national capital from any administrative divisions (like Washington D.C or Berlin not being in Brandenburg) and countries from time to time do create a new separate division for the capital (like Malaysia did by separating Kuala Lumpur from Selangor in the 1970s). St Pierre and Miquelon would want to join Canada for same reasons Newfoundland joined in 1949. Also is the last part of New France and independence might not do well given the fact only 7000 people live there. However Labrador, Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, National Capital Territory, and St. Pierre and Miquelon, are very unlikely to become provinces or territories any time soon. I'm just saying that in our lifetime their may be strong and formal demand for becoming provinces/territories. On the other hand none of the other ideas have a chance of ever becoming a province or territory or even a formal debate for all the reasons I have mentioned. Because of the huge unlikelihood of the majority of these proposed provinces/territories ever being created and even debated, I have nominated this article for deletion. I'm very sorry this deletion paragraph is so long but in order to understand why this article is nominated for deletion, all these details explain it much better than a short paragraph would. Otis the Texan (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the list functions as a set index of notable proposals for new political subdivisions in/of Canada, all referenced, and many with links to full articles. The proposals' political feasibility is not an indictator of notability: provincehood for Iceland might be highly unlikely but Toronto provincehood comes up in every municipal and provincial election cycle since about 1997, and the 1864 Charlottetown Conference was regarding the Maritime Union until John A. Macdonald butted in; the originally proposed union is still discussed to this day. Some of it is tacked-on and probably doesn't belong but that can be fixed well short of deletion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether any of these things would actually become Canadian provinces or not is not the point of the list — the point of the list is that they've been proposed as Canadian provinces or territories. This is no different than List of U.S. state partition proposals — very few things listed there are likely to ever actually happen either, but the point of the list isn't to suggest that they're likely, but to document the fact that proposals have existed. Furthermore, there are sources here, so while some referencing improvement is still needed it can't be claimed that there's a lack-of-sourcing problem either. Again, the likelihood that any of these would ever really happen has nothing to do with whether this is a notable topic or not — the mere fact that they've been proposed is historically significant in and of itself regardless of how realistic their actual prospects of really happening are or aren't. Bearcat (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not seeing an argument for deletion here, except maybe WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As the above editors say, the point of this list is not whether any of the proposals are likely to succeed, but whether the proposals have garnered significant attention— which they have. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:NLIST, the items are even independently notable. As Bearcat mentioned, it is irrelevant if these proposals come to fruition or not, only if they are notable. --hroest 17:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As for past AFDs about list of proposed secessions from California, etc., about which lots has been written. --Doncram (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator's argument is not based on policy. This wall of text is hard to understand, but it mostly says that these proposals are no longer active, one of the 60 arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Familywala edit

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

Non-notable television film, no significant coverage, per WP:NF and WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 09:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 20:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek pandey edit

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

I couldn't find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only mentions of the cases he's been involved in. There is one interview between him and a news channel, but I don't think that single source is sufficient - therefore I doubt he meets WP:NBIO. firefly ( t · c ) 08:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 08:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 08:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't seem to find any sources where the main topic is the subject, mostly just passing mentions. Also, the article may have been created by the subject or anyone close to the subject, looking at their username. —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 11:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. References do not show the notability of the subject. fails WP:NBIO. GermanKity (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As contributor said wrong article on this page are not self created. All the media news that are attached in article are real and published on the bases of work.Indias most the all big Media houses covered news based on work. All media links are attachedVvk755 (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vvk755 I've moved this comment here from the talk page of this AfD, as it would have been lost there. Thanks, firefly ( t · c ) 12:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this is very likely an autobio. Mccapra (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Unanimous Keep and deletion nom withdrawn  JGHowes  talk 13:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Dickson (Falklands) edit

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


  • Delete: Dickson does not receive significant coverage in any RS.
Dickson was and early settler of the Falkland Islands, and was given the responsibility of raising the British flag on specified occasions. He was murdered several months later. There are widespread minor mentions of Dickson in RS, at most they consist of a single sentence which states the information on the flag, and a mention of his name in the list of victims of Antonio Rivero. This is not WP:SIGCOV.
Dickson also receives a mention of two paragraphs in the Dictionary of Falkland Biography. However this is a self-published source by David Tatham, which includes many substantial entries on clearly non-notable indivduals (e.g. 1, 2, 3). Guidelines state that "Self-published sources are seldom useful for demonstrating the notability of any subject." Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Second attempt by this editor to have the article deleted (see Talk:William Dickson (Falklands)). Just to add I've been gathering sources with the intention of expanding this article but I haven't invested the time and effort to do so because of the efforts by the OP to have it removed plus they've been dangling the threat of AFD since August 2020. It's been forum shopped to a number of forums and I note the comment in talk that this article is unlikely to pass for AFD. Dickson was a significant figure in the early history and was entrusted with an official role to perform as part of the re-establishment of permanent British rule in the Falklands. That establishes his notability. His entry in the Dictionary of Falkland Biography was written by David Tatham, a former governor in the islands and noted expert on Falklands history. I'll remind the OP he should be aware of the expert provision in WP:SPS as he used the same argument last time. Recommend speedy close of this AFD due to a repeat of already stale and rejected arguments. WCMemail 08:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS, just some of the additional sources I've been looking at, of worthy note is that Dickson maintained a log of the Port Louis settlement, one time capital of the islands:
Manning 1932 p.217
Fitte 1966 p.94
Fitte 1966 pp.118-119
Fitte 1966 pp.121-128
Vernet’s Memorandum Presented 7 May, 1852 in CO 78/43
Gertrudis Mestivier quoted in El Lucero February 9, 1833
Remarks upon the Present State of the Falkland Islands, by Commander Robertson of His Majesty’s Sloop Snake
January 1835 ADM 1/43
FO 6/500
PRO 6/500/123
Hope to Townsend January 21, 1832 ADM I/41
Hope to Dickson January 16, 1833 in ADM 1/41
Port Louis Settlement Log (aka Dickson’s Diary) ADM 1/42
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wee Curry Monster (talk • contribs) 08:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are all primary historical sources except Fitte and Manning, and therefore not valid for establishing notability. The bibliographical details and the exact content of Fitte and Manning would be required for consideration by users.
The guidelines are very clear that self-published sources should not be used to establish notability, as proven above. That they are self-published by experts makes no difference to this. If one person in the the Dictionary of Falklands Biography is rendered notable by appearing there, then all of them are, and clearly, very many individuals in this book are not in the slightest bit notable. This likely has bearing on why the book could not find a publisher.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope that you're not going to repeat your practise of deterring outside comment with walls of text, this is only a selection of the sources I've been gathering with the intention of expanding on William Dickson. You will note I have already provided two additional sources that you were claiming didn't exist. WCMemail 11:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you have valid sources, please add them so users can see what they say, you have not done so so far. I'm happy to withdraw this AfD if there are two paragraphs relating specifically to Dickson in an RS, rather than just trivial mentions. The onus is on you to show the relevant text in the two new sources. Please do not make this personal. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the talk page last year, I shall wait patiently for you to exhaust your options in forum shopping your campaign, then take the time to quietly upgrade this article without drama. Your dismissal of sources provided by myself and others is in the talk page. I see no benefit in rehashing the discussion as my prior experience in trying to engage with you is that you are goal orientated and appear to browbeat anyone who disagrees with you. It's not an environment I wish to edit in. WCMemail 15:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you persist with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and continue with uncivil debate and personal attacks which typify your contributions to wikipedia. No forum shopping has occurred, merely following correct AfD procedure of first seeking a merger. Your refusal to provide your sources both here and in the talkpage of the article are noted. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, well anyone who is interested may review Talk:Death of Blair Peach#Use of the sentence "killed by the police" and judge for themselves. It is depressingly similar to my previous interaction with you. WCMemail 16:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to avoid further drama, User:Wee Curry Monster is implying that in the books he cites as "Manning, 1932" and "Fitte, 1966" there is significant coverage of Dickson. If he can provide the books' titles and publishers alongside the page number which provides WP:SIGCOV, I would normally say that means a couple of paragraphs about Dickson (in the voice of the author rather than a direct quotation of a primary source), I will happily withdraw the AfD. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep largely as per User:Wee Curry Monster. Subject is a significant figure in the early history of the Falkland Islands - including as the leader of the colony for a period. The OP's apparent plan to use the biography of a killer as a coatrack for the biography of his victim - when that victim is notable for reasons other than the fact of his having been killed - seems perverse and inappropriate.
I do not regard Tatham as self-published within the spirit of WP:SPS. The point of WP:SPS is that anyone can publish anything and the mere fact of publication does not make something reliable. However, the mere fact or circumstances of publication does not make a work unreliable either. Thatham is a noted expert and former governor of the islands. His acknowledgement notes that the Falkland Islands government funded his basic expenses and printing costs (without seeking editorial control). Shoot, there's even a foreword by Douglas Hurd. This is a long way from the sort of source that WP:SPS envisages. Kahastok talk 19:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article on an important participant in the early events that had implications for shaping of the Falklands Islands and the Falklanders is substantive and adequately sourced, with a potential for further development. As for Tatham's Dictionary, that is an informative, well researched and reliable source on Falklands history'; notice that the Guidelines quoted above say 'seldom' not 'never'. Apcbg (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with you and Kahastok in that it is a very good self-published source. I have used it myself as a source for information on articles whose notability is not in doubt. But do you not feel that the fact it includes many obviously non-notable entries weakens the case that an exception should be made for it? Boynamedsue (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No exception needs to be made, because WP:SPS does not apply. Kahastok talk 20:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That some entries might be 'obviously non-notable' is just your opinion; otherwise, non-self-published sources may include non-notable entries too. Apcbg (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WCM. Secondary sources' mention of Dickson's log (which BTW made him, along with María Sáenz de Vernet, one of the firsts chroniclers of the Falkland Islands) is enough by itself for notability.---Darius (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you can name the source and link or quote the significant coverage (rather than a trivial mention), I'll be happy to withdraw the AfD. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw AfD In a discussion with Darius, he assured me that Dickson receives significant coverage in a book by Mario Tesler which he cites on the article. Tesler is an opinionated source and in my opinion should be used with care for all but his own opinions and commonly agreed facts, but the book is not self-published and is widely cited, therefore, unlike Tatham, is valid to establish notability. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This refers to a period when ownership of the Falklands/Malvinas was actively contested. Despite his apparently lowly status, I suspect he was an important figure in this. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sacha Stone edit

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

Non notable, lot or original research sources seems to mention in passing from one or two news adding to unrealiable sources like buzz feed or to be from primary sources like court orders, as per WP:SINGLEEVENT, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:SYNTHESIS and non notable Shrikanthv (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Matters pertaining to WP:SINGLEEVENT, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:SYNTHESIS should be taken to the article's talk page. We can make a group effort to address the flaws. I hope you will identify them clearly and specifically. Biographical articles should not represent living people in a way that is misleading or biased. If this article has become biased or misleading then we should correct the record urgently. In this discussion we address notability only, which I think this subject clearly is. Sacha Stone has been the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources in multiple languages. Please be specific if you think that some other standard should apply. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment - awaiting reliable sources Shrikanthv (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment - This subject has been covered extensively by the BBC, South China Morning Post, AFP Fact-Check and other reliable sources. Do you feel that none of these sources are sufficient to show the subject's notability? --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - scabrous fraudster, but I fear he does meet our standards of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination mischaracterizes the sources. For one thing, multiple discussions have reached the conclusion that Buzzfeed News is RS, which is the source referenced here. For another, the nom ignores sources like AP News, BBC, and Sydney Morning Herald How these are supposed to be considered primary is exceptionally unclear. Finally, the sources already there demonstrate that there is ongoing coverage over a considerable time so none of the rest of the alphabet soup in the nomination applies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's true that this newly created article includes some primary and week sources that would benefit from improving, and it would be helpful if any problematic sources were flagged in the article and/or raised on the talk page. However, the mentions in RSs clearly indicate notability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla J. Yoo edit

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. Virtually no third party coverage. The bio relies on name-dropping. KH-1 (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The artist has a #1 charted song on Billboard, contributed to the most visited Hip-Hop music web magazine in South Korea [[45]] as a columnist, also known as the voice of the magazine's signature slogan sound. It is also normal for digital content creators to hold a roster of notable companies, artists, and brands that they have worked with, as their roles could be varied depending on the project. The artist played a key role in the projects that involve the Top 40 music artists both from the U.S. and South Korea, and her works were seen on American Television for several years, provided by multichannel video programming distributors such as Comcast and DirecTV. This achieves both WP:CREATIVE, and WP:ARTIST. 00holiday00 (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of stretch to claim that she has a #1 charted song, when her actual role was contributing the lyrics (most likely unaccredited per I Got a Boy#Track_listing). Notability is established through coverage from reliable third party sources. There are none.-KH-1 (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, I didn't recognize the romanization of her name. She is credited as being part of a team of producers for the song.-KH-1 (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources of the data found, not much notable also.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G11 speedy deleted by Liz. (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 19:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sagami Rubber Industries edit

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

Blatant advertisement of the company. Does not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. No changes from previously declined draft. GermanKity (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Based on consensus and Emmy winner. (non-admin closure) Peter303x (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Myers (animator) edit

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

PROD declined because the subject has won Emmys. Okay, that's true, but it doesn't establish notability. He's still lacking in significant, independent coverage from reliable sources. The article only cites blogspot and IMDb. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Winning an Emmy passes WP:ANYBIO, which states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." The first criteria is "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." which this person has done. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Emphasis on People are likely to... Where are the WP:RS? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • So we're just going to ignore Wikipedia guidelines now? Ok. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clearly you're missing where, right under "Additional criteria", it says conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sources I found were very trivial, with little if any interviews and one article on his Kickstarter campaign. Heart (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meets notability. multiple Emmy wins + nominations + the sourcing possible if BEFORE is completed = no reason to delete. Nominator should learn that it is not the state of sourcing in the article that matters, but the sources out there. Emmy winner is high-hanging fruit for AfD. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • DiamondRemley39, if the sources you added are all the sources that there are, then your BEFORE turned up just as much as mine. Perhaps you need to learn about "significant coverage"? This ain't it – Muboshgu (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a friend who won an Emmy for video editing. He's not notable either. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am talking the case for SNG for creative professionals, including WP:DIRECTOR, #4. He's no Time Person of the Year, but I would call the coverage, interview included, significant enough, and combined with multiple wins of the highest award in the industry, he cuts the mustard.
      • Not sure what you mean by "all that are there"--all that are where?
      • See WP:ARTN--writing a nomination statement based on what the article is vs what the subject is is a common mistake in nom statements.
      • I'm glad you have a friend. My cousin won an Emmy. Both are immaterial--such things the list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.
      • Tell me, did you get other sources on your BEFORE, or just the ones I added? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The general notability guideline supersedes any specific notability guideline. Clearly we're not on the same page on "significant" coverage. The article has four online citations, an interview in an external link, and IMDb. Those online citations give no biographical details about him at all. All they do is verify he won the award, and not meeting GNG means delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep As per WP:ANYBIO and as per WP:CREATIVE that says The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. Animation direction should be considered a major role in co-creation the mentioned notable movies. WP:GNG not always supercedes. A good example is WP:Academic. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keeps are unconvincing. It is necessary to show sources backing the claim of notability, of which there are preciously few in the article. I note that the awards in question all seem to implicate more than one person, so it's unclear whether everybody listed would actually be notable. In this case, If there is an objection on GNG grounds, that is a valid reason which needs to be addressed and not handwaved away due to semantic points about the guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darcy Richardson edit

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

Does not meet WP:BASIC, WP:NPOL, or WP:NAUTHOR. Many of the citations are links to the Alliance Party website, routine campaign coverage, passing mentions, and unreliable sources. No significant individual notability established. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can see coverage on google news like [46] [47][48][49][50][51]. It should pass for GNG. TheChronium 14:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • TheChronium, those only mention Richardson in passing, except for two unreliable sources you've included. Articles need to be primarily about him for the purposes of establishing notability. ― Tartan357 Talk 20:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after some effort, I simply could not find any reliable sources that give him any significant coverage for anything other than his Florida gubernatorial run, which means he fails WP:BLP1E. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually expected this to be a keep reading the article, but the sources aren't there to support it - most of the references aren't substantial (including the LA Times one, where he's briefly interviewed as a candidate who has no chance of winning) or are to publications we wouldn't count as reliable. SportingFlyer T·C 23:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough significant coverage in sources to argue that the subject meets WP:GNG. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank R. Pfetsch edit

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

Old unreferenced BLP tagged in December 2017. The only external link provided is to a biography provided by his employer, University of Heidelberg here. G-searches provided plenty of books and papers written by the subject but I'm unable to find anything *about* him from reliable sources. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many published reviews of his many books give him a pass of WP:AUTHOR, at least. And as the holder of a named chair (in Germany, where such things are rarer than the US and the UK) he also passes WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe he meets WP:PROF for at least two reasons: 1) he has written a standard academic textbook on the EU in German alongside other reviewed publications in English and German; 2) he holds an endowed chair at one of Germany's leading universities. An equivalent academic at say, Cambridge or Yale would hardly be suspected of non-notability. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This is a procedural close of no consensus owing to the lack of participation. No prejudice against a renomination. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Santa Ana kidnapping accusation edit

AfDs for this article:
2014 Santa Ana kidnapping accusation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As the creator and principal author of this article, when the story was initially reported I thought this was going to be a major case with persisting and substantial notability. I missed the two previous discussions about deleting it, which were both before a criminal trial was held. Eventually a trial was held and the most serious charges were not sustained – Garcia was found not guilty of kidnapping, and the charge of forcible rape was dismissed. Ultimately, he was only convicted of "lewd acts on a minor" (his wife, with whom he continued to have a 10-year household relationship until the accusation arose). There was no conviction for any sort of violence, and members of the community who knew the couple found the wife's story rather dubious. The entire term of his sentence has now passed by, so he has presumably been released at this point (probably much sooner since it seems likely that the full sentence was not served by incarceration, especially since the conviction was for a non-violent offense). I have found no coverage in sources since the trial and sentencing about five years ago. At this point the whole topic does not seem very notable, as it seems to lack WP:PERSISTENCE. Running off with a 15-year-old and having sex with her (and marrying her and working hard and trying to raise a family) is not something that is normally covered on Wikipedia, and that was the only thing he was convicted of in this case. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that both of the previous deletion discussions had no consensus outcomes, not keep outcomes, and part of the justification for not deleting the article at the time was to wait for the results of the trial. As noted above, the trial did not result in a conviction on the most serious of the charges and did not have a very large amount of coverage in reliable sources. After that, the case completely disappeared from public interest (showing a lack of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE). Please also note that the person requesting deletion is clearly the principal author of the article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Santamaría Valdera edit

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

Local politician who does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. The coverage is what one would expect of a local politician. Onel5969 TT me 00:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 00:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_June_10&oldid=1029276247"