Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 09	May 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Voltaggio edit

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

appeared in Top Chef several times, but never won. I don't think that qalifies for an article; generally we have only the winners. I am listing the other non-winners who have articles but show no obvious notability; I'm listing them separately, because checking might show that some of them might have notability otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These Top Chef nominations are all keeps, as significant coverage can easily be found for any of them. Baltimore Magazine, for example, published a lengthy profile of Voltaggio. pburka (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see reliable sources on him, like [1], [2], [3] from a quick search. MeetsWP:GNG. Article needs work, though. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sham Shui Po Park. Missvain (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sham Shui Po Park Swimming Pool edit

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability, fails WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. No in-depth coverage, nothing really stands out. SunDawn (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sham Shui Po Park, the location is very similar and the pool is also part of the park. Changing my vote as merging is better than deletion. SunDawn (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Sham Shui Po Park per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Other merge targets are Sham Shui Po and Public swimming pools in Hong Kong. The material about the swimming pool's history and facilities should be preserved in another article. Cunard (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Missvain (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics Academy of Music edit

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

Not eligible for speedy deletion as it's an educational institution. I was, however, completely unable to find any sources showing WP:ORGDEPTH so I believe that this fails WP:NORG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found nothing while doing a quick google search. Fails GNG. ColinBear (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously not notable, and I honestly think this would qualify for G11 were it not a school. Aspening (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non notable, shame it can't be speedied. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. I couldn't even find the usual trivial news stories or name drops that some places like this get. So nothing about it passes either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G11. Nothing but an ad, and it's status as a school doesn't disqualify it from that. 174.212.227.114 (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G11 (and at least borderline A1), even if A7 doesn't apply. All the same, utterly non-notable, and doesn't even try to hide it. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) – DarkGlow • 15:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Langtree edit

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

Unsourced BLP that does not meet WP:NACTOR; only had minor and recurring roles which result in no WP:SIGCOV. – DarkGlow • 17:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 17:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 17:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coverage by Broadway.com and 1st London theater, and another Interview by london theaters, some parts about a musical, Whatsonstage.com, quite short, musical, and a image caption and passing remark in The Guardian Tutelary (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he's had major leading roles on stage and on TV, I've added a number of references Piecesofuk (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with PiecesofUK, subject has secondary coverage by a good amount of reliable sources, therefore meeting the general notability guideline. Tutelary (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surekha Vani edit

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

Been deleted 2 weeks before for the same reasons: WP:BEFORE gives only supporting roles, fails WP:NACTOR CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The previous delete was via PROD, so we're not in WP:CSD#G4 territory. Pinging User:Nomadicghumakkad who nominated that PROD (rationale: "Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Only supporting roles.") DMacks (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The opening intro itself gives it away. Until and unless there is significant discussion of her work which results to her qualifying WP:BASIC if not WP:GNG, we shouldn't have this page. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a notable actor and she has received enough new coverage. I will develop the article with relevant reliable sources. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per nom. Fails NACTOR. Kolma8 (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hani King edit

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

Non-notable singer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SINGER. Coverage in sources is mostly trivial, and he doesn't qualify by any of the other criteria. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely zero reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Alex Ajipe edit

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

Article about a business person that fails WP:SIGCOV. Possible WP:PROMO and WP:SPAM, most of the sources are just passing mentions. TheChronium (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by TheChronium. Celestina007 (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 HBO Max original programming#Feature films. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

8-Bit Christmas edit

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

Fails WP:NFF, nothing found to pass GNG. Per NFF, "... films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Kolma8 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article must be eliminated because there is a lack of information about production and also there is not release date through reliable sources. The film hasn't even been released yet but there is people creating articles about it. When the film is released and there are reviews about it, I will defend its maintenance. Vide WP:NFF. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree with redirect to List of HBO Max original programming. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of HBO Max original programming#Feature films Film being made right now; until we have more details, a redirect is for the best. Nate • (chatter) 20:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obsidian (film) edit

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

Fails WP:NFF, nothing found to pass GNG. Per NFF, "... films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Kolma8 (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFF, also WP:TOOSOON Donaldd23 (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. You can find this article at Draft:Two (upcoming film). Missvain (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two (upcoming film) edit

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

Fails WP:NFF, nothing found to pass GNG. Per NFF, "... films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Kolma8 (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Draftify: Couldn't find any sources either, and the two in the article aren't enough to establish notability. It could always be created again if there's significant coverage in the future, but for right now I'm not seeing any of that, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't know if it will have coverage in the future and shouldn't just keep it because it might. HoneycrispApples (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of draftifying at first, but after some consideration, it seems like a good alternative to deletion. There's no set number on how many sources there should be to establish notablity, but if this gets a couple more good sources like the ones already in the article, I think it's reasonable to say it could pass WP:GNG. Until then, giving this article a chance to grow in draftspace seems reasonable. HoneycrispApples (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The work put in thus far can still be WP:PRESERVED for the time being until more coverage is released. The two sources in the article are actually good sources. I guess it might depend on your interpretration of what makes a notable production. If it's jut multiple sources at any point, then that is met, but if it has to be widely covered at all stages, it's borderline. I'd lean keep, but draft space seems a reasonable alternative per WP:ATD-I. -2pou (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

It (film series) edit

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

For the "WhAt AbOuT iNdIvIdUaL nOtAbIlItY" users, no. These three articles have the exact same issues. Plus, come on people, there's only three articles here. The TL:DR version is that there are only two films in each series and no evidence they definitely will be legitimate franchises. WP:ORG, WP:CONTENTFORK, and WP:TOOSOON are the primary issues, plus the fact that it's WP:CRYSTALBALL to assume these will be film series with more films.

These three series articles were created by KaitoNkmra23, who has created two other series articles that have been judged under the AFD court: A Quiet Place (film series), which ended with a Draftify consensus, and The Shining (franchise), which I have just nominated. It seems setting the template for articles about potential series is a common thing the user does, which I do respect and we could use more of those people. I would say Trolls (franchise) is worth keeping due to how much media is released under the Trolls brand and the fact that it is verifiably a franchise. However, there have been only two films in these "series" these three articles are about.

I am nominating these articles for the reasons provided in the two Afds I have mentioned. To state what A Quiet Place nominator Erik stated, "With two films, when comparing details, a reader can go from one article to another easily. With three films, a reader can go from an individual film's article to the film series article to readily see how all three films compare." To quote what I stated in The Shining AFD, "[These articles are] WP:Original research in assuming [they are] a [series], and the only thing [they] could be (and [are]) [are] a WP:CONTENTFORK of other articles." The development sections of these articles, for instance, are copied word-for-word, citation-by-citation, from the development sections of their respective films. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also going against Draftify due to all of these articles' info being in other articles. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, if they are deemed to be necessary for deletion I’ll kindly ask for them to be draftified. Though I am not in favour of the nominations and likely in the minority in this situation, I completely understand and respect the decision and will respect the outcome of the final consensus. KaitoNkmra23 talk 05:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mocking other editors by dismising the topic of individual notability is in incredibly bad taste the way it's done here.★Trekker (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to second this. You could have brought up the topic of individual notability without doing it the way you have. While you definitely shouldn't WP:BITE the newbies, it's also important to remain WP:CIVIL overall. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So using Comic Sans is in bad taste...... Sure, sounds legit.👨x🐱 (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'm just messing with ya. Come on, let me have fun once in a while. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FILMSERIES. Recent articles A Quiet Place (film series) and Coming to America (film series) were deleted for the same reasons. It's not that these articles are bad to have, just that it is very redundant. There is similar value in a reader going from one film article to the other, and a reader going from an individual film article to a series article that covers two. The main difference is more of a side-by-side comparison. In contrast, with three or more individual film articles lacking a series article, a reader has to make three stops to compare details (and comparing across three is harder mentally). Whereas, with a set of individual articles with a film series article, a reader can make one less stop, going from any individual article to the series article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a premature creation at best when two movies alone aren't enough to constitute a "film series". Three films might qualify, but as far as I know, we don't currently have any confirmation there will be a third one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - updating per discussion. Hocus00 (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Keep There are plenty of dedicated film series pages on Wikipedia with only 2 films. Additionally, there are WP:RS's in the article referencing the possibility of a third film which I found informative (including from Entertainment Weekly and Gizmodo). However, perhaps this page is best to be rebranded as a franchise page per WP:FILMSERIES and include information about the 90's TV film and book. Hocus00 (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any film series articles linked here: List of feature film series with two entries. Furthermore, development of a film does not equal an actual film. A Quiet Place (film series) was deleted even though a spin-off is in development, because there is no certainty that a tangible product will actually be created. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, there are definitely a few. For example: National_Treasure_(film_series), Finding_Nemo_(franchise), The_Secret_Life_of_Pets_(franchise), Monsters,_Inc._(franchise), and The_Incredibles_(franchise). Some of these are franchise pages though as they include other media. I would be in support of similarly rebranding this article as a franchise page and including information about the other It content as mentioned above. Specifically, merging information into this article from It (miniseries), It (novel) and Woh. Hocus00 (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely see this working KaitoNkmra23 talk 13:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but these are not comparable examples the closer you look. In terms of only major feature-length films, yes, there's only two in these examples as well. However, they also have theme parks, video games, merchandise, short films, and other media with the same character designs, universes, world looks, art styles and even voice actors to indicate they're franchises and series that would need their own articles. The series in this Afd don't have that, they just have two films. Also, placing the 1990 miniseries and Indian adaptation in the It article and renaming it It (franchise) is a WP:BADIDEA for reasons I've explained in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie (franchise) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shining (franchise). It has only received adaptations with differing styles, looks, plots and so on, were made in different eras, and are from very different companies, which does not verifiably indicate a franchise. It would be WP:ORG to assume there was one, plus there's an Adaptations section in the book article to summarize all of the adaptations concisely. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updating to delete, but only because there is an Adaptations section on the novel page which seems to be a sufficient summary. Wiki definitely needs this subsection if not an article which outlines all the different movies/mini-series/etc. that has come from the book. Hocus00 (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thaniye edit

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. A "TV award for editing" does not help to pass the above. Kolma8 (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete something from '07 should be easier to find something in a BEFORE, so I support the nom. -2pou (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Konde Music Worldwide edit

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

Covert UPE WP:ADMASQ article on a non notable organization that satisfies WP:NCORP, NCORP is satisfied when an organization possesses in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A WP:BEFORE search I performed only reveals an abundance of press releases and announcements but the organization per se is hardly ever discussed with in-depth WP:SIGCOV. Celestina007 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm not going to !vote at this point since there are sources and I'm not familiar with the ones used. A whole lot of record label pages look like this. I've got one on AfD myself called Ebullition Records. Graywalls (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls, I’m familiar with the sources & I can assure you without an iota of doubt that the sources are either paid for, or outright unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No a whole lot of record label pages have one source, and that is the website of the subject. This is way above par for the course for records labels. I have my doubts that it meets our quite stringent guidelines on notability for institutions, organizations and companies, but it is way above the standard for record label pages. To be fair, record label pages on average are the worst source pages we have of all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Record labels are supposed to be evaluated under NCORP/NORG. Graywalls (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My stance is unchanged, this is a non-notable article created for the sole purpose of gaming the system by creating this article, a loophole is created for criterions #5 and #6 whereby a plausible notability argument could be made in the case of a non notable musician masquerading as one. Believe it or not guys people are making a living off UPE as it is big bucks here in Africa. Celestina007 (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, indeed looks like WP:ARTSPAM, WP:BEFORE does not show up sigcov at all CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Iflaq ^(talk) 15:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flawed nomination, snow, withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kerner edit

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

~~WP:OR, lacks independent sources. No real proof that person has existed. Also, WP:Notability Mausebru (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. MausebruTheYeeter (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment please refrain from using secondary accounts to vote twice. --hroest 18:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I was just posting the same thing... using two accounts to !vote at AfD is not allowed. Second !vote removed.--- Possibly (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I thought somebody was working on this article to make it more in line with Wikipedia's standards, I thought it was just taking a long time since the person (User:DGG) was involved on many other fronts. This was discussed several weeks ago in the TeaHouse. JacquesKerner (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JacquesKerner: it's a volunteer operation here, and there is no guarantee that anyone will do any needed work ever, nor is there an expectation that they will do it. --- Possibly (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: Thanks, I realize and appreciate the volunteer nature of Wikipedia, that there is no guarantee of progress on this article. It's not clear to me whether that means that such a draft should be deleted, or after how long it should be deleted if there is inactivity. My understanding was that I was not best qualified to make further edits due to my inexperience with gathering valid references, but I was hopeful User:DGG or some other volunteer might. Totally understand nothing happened of course. If the draft must be deleted due to inactivity, so be it, I can learn to gather better references without a draft too.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No doubt he exists and is a reputable mathematician. Here his ID on MR https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet/MRAuthorID/100500. Also no doubt he satisfied Wikipedia's notability criterion for professors. The problem is will anyone finish writing his biography, in particular what his contribution is to the fields in which he works and its significance, rather than lists of where he worked etc. Billlion (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Speedy keep he appears to meet NPROF, with six books and over 200 journal articles. Click the "publications" tab on this link. proper sourcing is an issue though.--- Possibly (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep due to lack of WP:BEFORE - no real proof the person has existed? Somebody who has written over 70 peer reviewed articles may not have existed, this is one of the most ill-advised AfD nominations I have yet seen. Also, clearly notable per WP:NPROF#1, per GS he has an h-index of 33 and 12 papers with 100+ citations in a low-citation field (mathematics). --hroest 18:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I accepted this from draft, he is clearly a notable academic, sourcing can always be improved. Theroadislong (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: clearly meets WP:NPROF CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but extensively improveMausebru (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mausebru: I guess that means withdrawn? So far you have nominated the article for deletion, created a second account (MausebruTheYeeter) to support the nom, and finally struck your nomination and !voted keep. This strongly suggests that you should probably not make more AfD noms until you understand the process.--- Possibly (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3 (Smack EP) edit

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

Sourced only by a blog. Could not find any reliable sources. Didn't chart, and it's only available to stream on MySpace. Fails the general notability guideline and the album notability guideline. versacespace leave a message! 14:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. versacespace leave a message! 14:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, please visit here. Mausebru (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed, non-notable musical piece. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Smack (Brazilian band) Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Milli Vanilli discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2×2 (album) edit

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

Previous AFD in 2010 was closed as "keep" with an admittedly...errr...shaky discussion. "Keep" rationales include its chart position and it charting higher than their other albums. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. I support a redirect to Milli Vanilli discography, and although charting makes a strong claim for notability, it should be accompanied by reliable sources to merit an article. versacespace leave a message! 14:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. versacespace leave a message! 14:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Milli Vanilli discography Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:A7 + WP:G10; have emailed Arbcom for review.. Johnuniq (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rahee Vasant Dahake edit

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

Unable to find any indepth coverage to satisfy NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. There appears to be some WP:GAMEing of the system with this draft Draft:Rahee_Vasant_Dahake VV 12:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. VV 12:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 12:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Can't find reliable sources.-KH-1 (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cricketers who have played in more than 100 Indian Premier League matches edit

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

Following discussions on the article's talkpage and at the Cricket Project, concerns have been raised about this list. These include, but are not limited to, all the stats coming from a single source (and indeed reference), the lack of rationale on why this is deemed to be significant, and the fact it doesn't take that long to play 100 matches (6 or 7 seasons). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons at the WT:CRIC discussion: it only takes 6-7 years to meet this criteria, no evidence that "100 IPL appearances" is considered a significiant achievement by reliable sources e.g. newspapers. This is just a stat plucked out of Cricinfo's database, which doesn't demonstrate notability of the stat. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Joseph2302's comments. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Equivalent of WP:ARBITRARYCAT. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't have such a list for any other domestic cricket competition as far as I can tell. StickyWicket (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially just WP:NOTSTATS and quite fancruft-like. Ajf773 (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my comments on the talk page, we don't have these lists for other domestic competitions. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To say simply, we don't need these type of articles. Playing 100 Test or 200 ODI matches can be a prestigious record (stated by reliable sources) for having such lists. But we don't need those in case of franchise leagues. Other franchise leagues such as - BPL, PSL or CPL also don't have these type of lists. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 06:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Geschichte (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Alejo edit

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

teen actress with no really major role, no significant awards, and most of thereferences from non-independent sources DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG; WP:NACTOR Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails GNG. I hope she gets there and receives a lot of national and international coverage but 11 years into her career you would expect more to be written. We must use common sense here. --ARose Wolf 15:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is cleaned up a bit. The sources there are definitely reliable. Sources 1 & 2 are non-trivial sources about her. Sources 3 to 12 describe/mention her roles in the respective shows she starred in. Source 13 states her nomination for a PMPC award. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NACTOR. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NACTOR per Astig's argument. The sources in the article are reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Superastig. Abrilando232 (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solo (upcoming film) edit

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

Poorly-sourced stub about non-notable (and as yet, apparently unreleased) film, fails WP:GNG / WP:NFILM. Previously PRODded on WP:NFF grounds, but this was removed (without justification, IMO), hence this AfD now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The production is not notable. The ref. to prove that principle photography has begun is a Instagram photo from the "backstage." Fails NFF and GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFF Donaldd23 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario fireworks explosion edit

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

NOT NEWS DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: The current state of this article is kind of comical, but I think it meets the general notability guideline. versacespace leave a message! 11:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Delete I cleaned up the comedic text. What's left is a local news story.--- Possibly (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the guideline of WP:NOTNEWS. The deaths are tragic, but the scope of the incident is not widespread, thus not notable at all. SunDawn (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom versacespace leave a message! 11:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. You can find it at Draft:The Legitimate Wise Guy. Missvain (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Legitimate Wise Guy edit

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

Per WP:NFF - "Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun." No such sources exist. Source used as evidence is date before the start date, should be in draft space until such sources exist. BOVINEBOY2008 15:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Pretty borderline that "the production itself" is notable per NFF, but as stated by the nom, we don't have confirmation of a filming start yet since the source was a forcast date, not a report of what has happened in the past. Doesn't require outright deletion, though. -2pou (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after being closed by a sock, which was reverted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 30.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom, there don't seem to be any sources to indicate that principal production has started, and per WP:NFF we need that for a standalone article. Hut 8.5 11:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Five Crowns (game) edit

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

This doesn't have the coverage for a standalone article. I would favour deletion, but an ATD could be merge/redirect to Set Enterprises#Games. Boleyn (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested, seems to be a variant of the game. Oaktree b (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting it certainly is not a variant of SET. Not even close. And if it isn't set you are saying it is a variant of, I don't know what you are saying. Hobit (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Lots of reviews in German. Even a mini-review (5 paragraphs) by Orson Scott Card, not worth much, but worth noting. https://www.spielkultisten.de/ is, I think, generally considered reliable (though I'm having problems finding anything on their site). Hobit (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, Good finds. Which of those are reliable, now this is the question... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, hoping that someone who reads German can help us out. Hobit (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 07:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dexter's Laboratory#Music releases. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter's Laboratory: The Musical Time Machine edit

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

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums, but commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics tried to convince me they were somehow individually notable. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, which didn't make them notable as Notability is not inherited. Another argued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid WP:POPULARPAGE argument. Another argued "Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date", which is invalid as most of these soundtracks never do and even so, we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL.

For this article, only coverage is Allmusic review and a announcement press releasee. This is not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dexter's Laboratory, particularly the Merchandise sub-section. The track listing is probably not necessary, but the AllMusic review shows that the album got a little notice that can be mentioned at the show's main article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. As the editor who authored the final quotation from the nominator's rationale citing the previous bundled AfD, I stand by my reasoning as to why the pages included in the original AfD, especially this one, which I have been involved in editing, should not be deleted outright. The article in question's subject is a real piece of merchandise, a soundtrack album for an animated television show with an existing WP article. The album's title could be used as a search term for either an article about the album itself, a list of spin-off media, or a redirect to the main series page. In the event that this page is deleted without redirect, the most appropriate article that it could have redirected to, being Dexter's Laboratory, would not be the first page a user sees when searching for the album name, and all previous revisions and article histories would be gone, which would be a nonconstructive move in the event that this article meets the notability standards in the nominator's perspective at a later date. (For the record, I do not agree that the article's subject does not meet WP's notability standards.) On a related note, I take issue with the nominator's assertion that "most of these soundtracks never do" hold up to notability standards because the nominator did not back up the claim with quantifiable figures or any other data. The nominator's reasoning about the article's subject not being verifiable at a later date is not supported by the reference to the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy, which deals with predictions, original research, rumors, unverified claims, speculation, data extrapolation, and future planned or expected events, as the article nominated is about a soundtrack album released two decades ago. Additionally, the nominator has written this AfD's reasoning in a passive-aggressive tone, using words and phrases such as "ignorant", "tried to convince me", "were somehow", and "lousy". It is my opinion based on the nominator's tone that this AfD was made in bad faith, and I cannot support that type of argument. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 23:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In retrospect, I'm not a fan of how I wrote those comments either, but please WP:Assume good faith no matter the situation.
- "The article in question's subject is a real piece of merchandise, a soundtrack album for an animated television show with an existing WP article." That does not make it notable. WP:Notability is not inherited.
- "All previous revisions and article histories would be gone, which would be a nonconstructive move in the event that this article meets the notability standards in the nominator's perspective at a later date." Like I said, if this is a concern,Draftify. It doesn't need to be in main space.
- "For the record, I do not agree that the article's subject does not meet WP's notability standards." Then provide evidence that it does. Link me to independent sources, reviews (besides that Allmusic page), books talking about it (not just giving it a passing mention), archive.org scans of print sources, newspapers.com urls, academic literature, charts, certifications, anything that would make this meet WP:SIGCOV. 👨x🐱 (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback. That being said, I do not accept your insistence that I accept your negative language in the original post as good faith when that was clearly not your intention. Regardless of that, however, I will comment on your individual musings to my opposition.

"That does not make it notable. WP:Notability is not inherited." That does not make it non-notable either. My assertion was simply that this piece of media exists in a tangible format. It was by no means my main defense against deletion.
"Like I said, if this is a concern,Draftify. It doesn't need to be in main space." My point is that the article would be better off suited as a redirect in comparison to deletion. A redirect does not contain a draft and will most often contain only a link with possible redirect-specific templates below it. This solution would avoid deleting the article history and instead would preserve it in article history for that redirect. I do not understand why outright deletion is preferable to a redirect, so if you could explain that, I would appreciate it.
"Then provide evidence that it does." et al. I agree in the sense that this article could incorporate existing sources into its citations. A lack of references does not in and of itself constitute a deletion. Again, would you please explain why outright deletion is preferable to a redirect when articles on this topic already exist? — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 07:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dexter's Laboratory#Music releases Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dexter's Laboratory#Music releases. Nothing to merge. No sources to warrant a draft. czar 02:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khuman edit

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

Khuman is not a caste, all I could find is obsecure ref of a person named Khuman Kathi who was a out-law ( baharvatiyo in Guarati language) Clear case of delete as there is no caste called KhumanJethwarp (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jogidas Khuman was the famous out-law with Ethics. There are many movies and stories for his good deeds. He was out law as rebellion against state of Bhavnagar. the legend of jogidas khuman

Loma Khuman famous warrior know for his contribution in Battle of Bhuchar Mori

Culture

Exactly, Khuman could be name of couple of persons like you said but not a casteJethwarp (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 07:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this appears to be a regular last name, and there do not appear to be enough notable people with this last name for it to be a disambiguation page. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Going with no consensus. Feel free to speedy renominate if you wish. Missvain (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glenbrook, Lake County, California edit

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

As the article admits, and Hoberg's book relates, this was an early resort in the area, which appears to have faded away by WW II or earlier. There's a single house now, and what appears to be something that was intended to be a retail building of some sort, so freshly constructed when the Google car came by two years back that the stickers were still on the windows. But it clearly is not a settlement, nor was it, and while it had a 4th class PO for a while, that was supplanted by Cobb overf a century ago. GHits for the resort are very slim, so not likely notable. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was expandable from Hoberg. Uncle G (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A resort is not a settlement that meets GEOLAND, so it needs to hit GNG. A single source is not sufficient for GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a good thing that there were also sources already in the article when Hoberg was added to them, and further sources added after Hoberg, then. ☺ All that I pointed out was that it was expandable, which makes this a lot better than some of these "unincorporated communities" where we've found it difficult to impossible to even determine what they even really are. Uncle G (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not much in newspapers.com - the telegraph line reached there in 1874 and a reference to the Silas Broadwell mentioned in our article being "of Glenbrook". Will need to search further in other places. Hog Farm _Talk 02:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia serves as a gazetteer, where an article for a small place like Glenbrook may be little more than the name and location. This article gives much more. The primary source for Kelsey Creek (Big Valley) notes its role as a historical stage stop, and also mentions it several times as a modern location. Two of the sources for Bottle Rock Power Plant similarly name it as a modern location. An early 20th century advertisement when G.W.R. Tredway was the proprietor called it "one of the most charming resports in the State. Fine scenery, hunting and fishing; excellent table." There may well be more material if we account for name changes. Tantarelli Springs was a site with natural fumarole activity in 1980, located at Glenn Brook off Bottle Rock Road in the Cobb Mountain Area. This may be in the present Mandala Springs resort, which claims origins as Glenbrook Resort. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 07:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Association of Architects edit

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

Unsourced since 2006. WP:BEFORE reveals a decent number of search results, but they are almost all passing mentions. The best sources I could find from clicking on about 20 newspaper articles and books were this PR piece and this one paragraph in an encyclopedia. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. The article is only sourced to the subject's own website. We cannot hae such things on Wikipedia.Zelnhelmthegreat (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zelnhelmthegreat I feel that is an argument in bad faith, this is an official organization that accredits architects. There is no question about whether the organization exists or not. Clearly the existence of the organization is not OR, it is basically a government organization. The question is rather whether it is notable per WP:ORG. --hroest 21:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment we have articles about many other such organizations which are all quasi-government organizations and are all weak on sourcing. Point in case Ontario Association of Architects and Ordre des architectes du Québec. If they were private organizations we would probably delete them, but here they have quasi-government status since they regulate the profession and are probably notable due to that. --hroest 21:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Other stuff exists is not an argument to keep an article. We need to have adequate indepdent sourcing on this organization. There are huge numbers of articles in Wikipedia that do not meet our inclusion criteria, their presence is no argument to keep other such organizations having articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 07:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The article hasn’t been updated or sourced in 15 years and would otherwise be an easy call for deletion. Because it is affiliated with the provincial government, there is reason to reconsider. But I still support deletion for lack of verifiable information and notability. ABT021 (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tinkler (baritone) edit

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

I don't think any of the operatic achievements amount to specific musical/artistic notability, and as for general notability, the only two sources cited (admittedly RS) are interviews, and a search finds nothing better, hence fails WP:GNG as well. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there is enough prose and independence in the Herald source here to count as substantial coverage as the publication has a reputation for fact-checking but more good coverage is needed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs "... significant coverage in multiple reliable sources ...," which he doesn't have. Johnnie Bob (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ragamuffins edit

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

non-notable band. A Google search fails to return anything of note of them. The "press" section includes a self-published source (out of the two "press" sources there). Therapyisgood (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article doesn't contain any reliable sources whatsoever, just streaming links. Google didn't return any better sources either. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Subject of the article doesn’t pass WP:MUSICBIO. -Xclusivzik (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Asia edit

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

I don't know if an article actually could be written about this topic, it seems very broad. Regardless, the current article serves no purpose, it is nothing more than just a list of various Asian empires. Rusf10 (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, with related article added. Article's contents are not actually topics under this title; while this very broad topic could conceivably be made into a recreated article, this is not even a starting point or useful to a reader. Reywas92^Talk 04:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom and WP:TNT. The topics could be outline articles, but there's little to nothing worth salvaging here. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also endorse deletion of the second article.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles as the topics are too broad to be usefully discussed, as the creator demonstrated by not discussing them. Mccapra (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Nothing more than an unsourced topic list at this point. Johnnie Bob (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe this could've been written as a disambiguation page or something, but in its current form it just doesn't work as a way to organize our content. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no need for this page, too broad, nothing to see or salvage from this article. SunDawn (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Member of the Parliament of Scotland. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Patrick Houston, 1st Baronet edit

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

Does not meet WP:BASIC. I have only found one source with one sentence about him. I can verify that he died in 1696 and his wife was Anne, that's it. I see nothing notable about him. Rusf10 (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable person, I added a few references that I was able to find briefly in 5 minutes - more exist. Kolma8 (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is one thing, notability is another. I looked at the first two sources you provided and see nothing beyond who he was married to and when he died (actually in one of the sources the entry is about his wife, not him). As for the third source, I could not locate where he is mentioned, could you please provide the page number?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the reference in the article. Thank you. Kolma8 (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable per WP:ANYBIO #1 as the actual recipient (as opposed to the inheritor) of a baronetcy. There is clear consensus and no 1st baronet has ever been deleted at AfD. In fact, the level of notability is generally set by consensus at CBE or higher, well below a baronetcy. In any case, also notable per WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national legislature. Both these facts were in the article before the nomination, so WP:BEFORE has clearly been failed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A baronetcy is not an award or honor, it is bought and paid for. You have cited no policy that says a baronet is granted auto-notability. Also, only a knight is below a baronet in CBE. So unless they are a knight, they rank higher. Also, we don't have a policy granting auto-notability for CBE either. And where is the source that says he was a member of parliament himself? I consider that an unproven claim.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - With respect, I fear you do not know what you are talking about. A baronetcy is most certainly an honour in the British honours system. Yes, they were once bought, but clearly they were not granted to nobodies and conferred titles that obviously meet WP:ANYBIO. He was also knighted before he became a baronet, and knighthoods generally weren't bought. Also, only a knight is below a baronet in CBE. So unless they are a knight, they rank higher. What on earth does this mean? Many honours rank higher than a CBE. In fact, I'll tell you which do, in order: CVO, CIE, CMG, CSI, CB, Knight Bachelor, KBE, KCVO, KCIE, KCMG, KCSI, KCB, CH, GBE, GCVO, GCIE, GCSI, Baronet. So, in actual fact, Baronet is eighteen levels above a CBE! Consensus (you seem to be obsessed with policies, but ignore consensus) has long been that all recipients of the CBE and higher meet WP:ANYBIO #1. Once again, see this for confirmation. As to your request for a source for him being an MP, it's already in the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I do know what I'm talking about, I researched this. As per Cambridge Dictionary, a baronet is "a man who has the lowest title of honor that can be given in the U.K., below a baron but above a knight, and given from father to son" [4] They are not 18 levels above anyone. Yes, they are passed on, but someone had to pay for it at some point.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - leaving aside all stuff about baronetcies, the man was an MP, so there is no debate to be had. @Rusf10 - hole... digging... Ingratis (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A member of the Parliament of Scotland and the Convention of the Estates of Scotland clearly meets notability criteria. Dunarc (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ours (band). Missvain (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sour (Ours album) edit

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

As it stands this is completely unsourced. Looking on the internet, the album's existence is somewhat verified, admittedly through user generated content. I can't find any sources at all that cover this album in depth. This fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. versacespace leave a message! 02:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. versacespace leave a message! 02:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ours (band) – Can't find any reliable sources on the internet after scouring through ten pages of articles, so it's safe to say that this article fails GNG/NALBUM. Deletion feels like overkill, because this can be turned into a plausible redirect. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 03:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ours (band)- fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. The recording lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Given that the album has not charted on national music charts, or received any certifications or major accolades, a standalone article is not appropriate. --Ashley yoursmile! 08:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator: I support a redirect to Ours (band) as well. versacespace leave a message! 11:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I struck out your vote, you already voted when nominated the song. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioSoulTruthFan: the comment wasn't a vote. Deletion and redirection are different from each other, and since this is a deletion venue, I made it clear that I support a redirect as well. versacespace leave a message! 12:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ours (band)- fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A P Jayasankaran edit

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

BEFORE doesn't help. Fails GNG and fails WP:NPOL ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 00:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 00:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 00:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 00:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The updates on the article mention him as a member of legislative assembly. If that's true, this nomination is withdrawn. Thank you. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 13:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 02:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Grove High School edit

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

As per WP:NSCHOOL, schools "must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both". This one satisfies neither. Rusf10 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some references to establish notability. This school's events are regularly covered in the The Daily Ardmoreite and new stories about the school also appear on KXII. Stedil (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Local news coverage exists for almost any school, it doesn't make it notable. As an organization schools have to meet WP:AUD--Rusf10 (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10, uour assertion thst schools must pass NORG is 100% false. A secondary school is considered notable if it meets either GNG or NORG. It clearly meets GNG, but I'd argue that a detailed article in the state's official paper of record wouldalso pass NORG. 174.212.228.209 (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The school also has articles about it published in The Oklahoman, which is a regional paper and thus satisfies AUD. Stedil (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GNG does not guarantee notability, it only creates a presumption. That presumption can be challenged (which is what I'm doing right here). If you want to argue that the school is notable enough for its own article using GNG, go ahead, but your still going to have to overcome the fact that only local sourcing has been provided. The Oklahoman is not regional, it is an Oklahoma-based newspaper for distribution within Oklahoma. Find a source outside of Oklahoma.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lone Grove, Oklahoma and create a section on education. About half this article would better be there anyway. The level of sourcing for this school, most of it from a hyper local paper and routine coverage, is just not enough to justify a free standing article when we have a much more staightforward way to cover the same topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sourcing available, as with any other American high school. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lone Grove, Oklahoma per the recommendation of Johnpacklambert. Clearly there are sources out there that discuss it. The problem is that are from local sources and are made up of extremely routine coverage. Topics like them building a new gym aren't exactly notable subject material for the global audience of Wikipedia. That said, I think creating a section for it in the Lone Grove, Oklahoma article is totally fine compared to just straight deletion. Especially since the Lone Grove, Oklahoma article could use the content. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Lone Grove city article should have an education section. The problem with merging the article there is that the school district and the city are separate governing bodies with different boundaries. Compare the boundaries of the city here with the school district and its boundary map. The district boundary extends well beyond the municipal boundaries, both to the north and south, and there are certain parts of the city's boundaries east and west that are not in the district's boundary. While it is still my contention that the sourcing for the high school itself meets GNG, at the very least the school district that governs the school is definitely notable as an entity distinct from the city. Stedil (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what? As far as I know there's nothing that says a school can't be mentioned in a city article if that's where its located. Whatever the boundary of the school district it in is. Otherwise, I'd like to see a policy or guideline saying we can't do that, but I'm pretty sure there's articles about cities/towns/whatever all over the place that contain mentions of what schools are in those places. 13:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet WP:GNG and is sufficiently sourced to remain as a stand-alone article. Johnnie Bob (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears they have multiple state championships. Independent secondary sources should exist for them. I will try to find them when I get up tomorrow. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a source from The Oklahoman. The newspaper is based in Oklahoma City, and no sources consider this school as being in the Oklahoma City area. I'll try to find the third source, but the state championships make it unlikely that notability guidelines are not met. Per WP:AUD, we do not need sources from outside Oklahoma. Here is the source. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanusha Murugasan edit

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

The subject is barely notable and fails WP:NACTOR. PROD was removed by User talk:49.196.155.229. Submitted on behalf of IP user per request posted on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion -- Johnnie Bob (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero sources found in Gnews. Normal Google search turns up her facebook, linkedin and tiktok. Not notable at all I'm afraid. Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on existing search parameters, i.e. 'Dhanusha Murugasan', I am unable to find significant mentions of the subject on the Internet via Google. The lack of her name in Tamil on article and IMDb makes it hard to find Tamil language based sources. – robertsky (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My PROD tag was removed without a reason and I failed to notice that in my watchlist. Strong delete. nearlyevil 665 09:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any reliable sources. QuantumRealm (meow • telescope) 20:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Non-notable, no hits at all at Google News. SunDawn (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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