Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 12

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
< May 11 May 13 >

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 merge to List of scale model sizes. Missvain (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1:600 scale edit

1:600 scale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic does not pass WP:GNG. Currently, the article is not reliably sourced. A search only comes up with results showing the the 1:600 scale is used by some models, but no in-depth coverage discussing the significance of the 1:600 scale itself. Rusf10 (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:ALLORNOTHING. Why does this article specifically meet WP:GNG?--Rusf10 (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:01, 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. ✗plicit 13:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baton Rouge–Pierre Part combined statistical area edit

AfDs for this article:
Baton Rouge–Pierre Part combined statistical area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has only one source, a primary one, so clearly fails WP:GEOLAND. Potentially could be merged into Baton Rouge metropolitan area. It also no longer exists as a combined statistical area which isn't a reason for deletion but does mean its unlikely that new sources will appear. Eopsid (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as stand-alone per above. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. If CSA was active, then I would support a merge onto the CSA list. Perhaps this would be appropriate if incorporated onto a list of former/defunct CSAs, but does not meet WP:N as its own article.Babegriev (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as stand-alone per above. Fails WP:GEOLAND --Whiteguru (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Heart (talk) 10:49, 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. ✗plicit 13:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Armstrong (politician) edit

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. The independent sources that are cited are not primarily about the subject. A previous AfD resulted in consensus to delete. Redirect to 2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries#Withdrew during the primaries. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are two cases of significant, independent coverage in the article: from KIMT and from KXNet. Enough to meet GNG. Nweil (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nweil, both of these are pretty routine campaign coverage. If that qualifies, then pretty much anyone can get over WP:NPOL. ― Tartan357 Talk 21:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument as I see it. Nweil (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nweil, that's not WP:OTHERSTUFF. I haven't referenced another deletion discussion. I'm saying we have WP:NPOL for a reason (it's a guideline), and it does set requirements for unelected candidates, which preclude routine campaign coverage from satisfying notability. Perhaps more importantly, the subject's notability does not appear to have been significalty better-established since the last AfD was closed with a consensus to delete. ― Tartan357 Talk 22:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where in WP:NPOL does it exclude campaign coverage? Nweil (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nweil, please read Bearcat's remarks in the previous AfD. They put it pretty well: The key to making a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article on candidacy grounds is to show that his campaign coverage has exploded so far beyond the norm that he's got a credible claim to being much more special than other candidates. ― Tartan357 Talk 23:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to Bearcat, that's not policy. Nweil (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nweil, WP:NPOL is a guideline, which we should follow in most cases. If you read their full remarks, you'll see how they're applying NPOL: Every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so such coverage does not automatically get the person over GNG — if all you had to do to give a candidate an exemption from having to pass NPOL was to show some evidence that campaign coverage existed, then every candidate would always get that exemption and nobody would ever actually have to pass NPOL at all anymore. ― Tartan357 Talk 23:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The contention there is provably false. I just had an article today where the person was the elected mayor of a 60K person city for over ten years but there was never any significant coverage of her campaign or her wins. Thus does not meet GNG. Nweil (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be "policy" — guidelines such as WP:NPOL are every bit as binding as any policy. It's a standard principle of Wikipedia, in fact, that policies tell us what to do while guidelines explain how to do it, so they work in tandem, and guidelines cannot be ignored just because they're branded as "guidelines" instead of "policies". You obey the policies and the guidelines together, period.
At any rate, every candidate in every election everywhere really, truly can always show some evidence of campaign coverage — so if two pieces of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt an unelected candidate for political office from WP:NPOL on the grounds that he had passed WP:GNG instead, then nobody would ever have to pass NPOL at all anymore, and NPOL would thus be entirely meaningless. So getting into a candidate into Wikipedia is not just "two pieces of campaign coverage = GNG booya screw all y'all haters boiiiiii" — making an unelected candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article most certainly does require either evidence that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons completely independent of the candidacy, which would already have gotten him into Wikipedia anyway, or evidence that his campaign generated such an unusual depth and range of coverage that he can credibly claim to be a special case of significantly greater notability than most other candidates in some way that passes the ten year test for enduring significance. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:57, 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 redirect to List of criminal organizations in DC Comics. If anyone wishes to merge the content from behind the redirect, they can do so at their own editorial discretion. Daniel (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tartarus (DC Comics) edit

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

A non-notable supervillain team-up that existed for a single storyline. There are no secondary sources being used at all, and my WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing in reliable, secondary sources, thus failing the WP:GNG. This article was PRODed several months ago, but that was removed without explanation or improvement. Note that the actual location from Greek Mythology, Tartarus exists in the DCU, so there are a few search results regarding that, but that is completely unrelated to this team. Rorshacma (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:56, 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 delete. ✗plicit 02:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Bond edit

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC guidelines. A few very brief mentions in the local press is all she got. She released a single album when she was 4 years old (which she allegedly wrote the lyrics to). Rusf10 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Pink Drums, Purple Lights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Delete Maya Bond appears to fall under WP:1E with an event (album) of dubious notability. The article itself has several RS mentions, albeit not the primary topic of most. I would be more confident of the artist's notability based strictly off of WP:BAND if the compilation album inclusions were notable, however, the notability of these works have not been established. If there were stand-alone articles for these compilation albums, a redirect would be more appropriate. With respect to the Pink Drums, Purple Lights article, there are no cited sources on that article. While some of the sources on Maya Bond could apply to the Pink Drums article, the notability per WP:NALBUMS for Pink Drums, Purple Lights is not established. Being said, I'm not taking a firm position on the Maya Bond article, however, would endorse the deletion of Pink Drums, Purple Lights. Babegriev (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both (singer and album) - The album Pink Drums, Purple Lights got a featured review in the Houston Press [1], which is not cited at the album article but it is cited at the Maya Bond article (footnote #5 as I type this). That is the only semi-reliable coverage I can find for the singer or the album. The other sources in the singer's article are minor one-sentence mentions, typically noting the novelty of recording an album at age 4, but I can find nothing else that qualifies as significant and reliable coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment about the previous AfDs: Maya Bond the actress appears to be someone else. The singer survived two previous AfDs, but the first was in 2007 when notability requirements were looser (and note how everybody said there were sources but did not provide a single specific example). The second AfD ended with no consensus, allowing the article to just barely survive. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:40, 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. ✗plicit 13:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M'ViTim edit

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

Borderline G11 Promotional non notable article created by a PR firm. The subject of the article is a musician but fails to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO and generally lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before such links me to sponsored posts, self published sources and user generated sources all of which can not be used in establishing notability. Celestina007 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' The tone of the article, let alone the content, is promotional in nature. Does not appear to have many hits on Google or YouTube to satisfy notability guidelines. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Yes, the tone of the article, let alone the content, is promotional in nature. Written like a promotional blurb, as per nom. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:35, 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. Missvain (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regional News Group edit

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

I sent this new article to draft yesterday and it has been moved back into mainspace. It is potentially notable but none of the sources in the article are about the subject. Briefly, ABS-CBN lost its broadcast franchise (all of the sources are about this) and various regional services have been set up/continued by former employees (none of the sources are about this). If the subject can be developed it should be draftified, otherwise it should be deleted. Mccapra (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: No need to delete or move to draftspace, article has reliable sources. Yes theres no source about the subject, but there is source for some topics there, (ex: ABS-CBN Corporation will close ABS-CBN Regional on August 28, 2020 due to House of Representatives 70-11 vote denying/killing the new 25-year franchise for ABS-CBN last July 10, 2020). SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think you said pretty much the same as the nom — there are sources cited, but they aren't actually relevant to the subject of this article. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a pity the opportunity to develop this in the draft space wasn't taken and the article was quickly moved back; it could have possibly turned into something worth keeping, but now I've no option but to !vote to delete. And not that it's deletion grounds per se, but noting that there's also some unsavoury behaviour behind this, incl. likely COI / possible UPE by one or more editors. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move into draftspace: I think the article still has insufficient references (citing that it has still yet to determine if there's new additional references about the subject). Ekis2020 (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move into draftspace No references provided have the phrases "RNG" or "Regional News Group". They all mainly talk about the former network ABS-CBN Regional, which many people part of this come from. Nexus000 (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - since this was originally move to draftspace and later moved back into mainspace by Farlinsports (which is "probably a controversial" move action from this aformentioned user) without any submitting for a review or using a script. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Barely found anything about the media group. Sources indicated in the article mention ABS-CBN Regional, but not RNG itself. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverted bad non-admin closure per WP:NACD. The user who closed the discussion was directly involved and had no business pursing the action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't move to draftspace. THe actual subject of the article has one source, that to a Facebook page, failing WP:RS. All other references are for background fluff that can be, and is, already discussed elsewhere. That means we'd be left with a draft with a single reference to Facebook. If anyone wants to host it on their own user space they should be free to do so, though. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete and move to draftspace: Article was moved to draftspace but returned to article space. Lets just revert it back to draftspace. SeamJ 2007 (tallk) 13:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SeanJ 2007, please strike this !vote or your previous !vote on this discussion. Only one !vote per user - even if you have changed your sig to a slightly different name in the meantime. Cabayi (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cabayi: Haha, Ok! SeanJ 2007 (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG per nom. Does not comply with WP:NCORP since this is an "umbrella" of programs formerly of ABS-CBN Regional. SBKSPP (talk) 03:16, 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. Going with delete. If someone decides the want to merge something from this deleted article I'm happy to drop it in your userspace. Feel free to redirect if you wish, too. Missvain (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Garguax edit

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

Fails WP:GNG. No particular coverage in reliable sources. TTN (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A minor comic villain, with no coverage in reliable, secondary sources providing any hint of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 16:35, 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 redirect to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations#Skeleton Crew. Consensus is that this doesn't warrant a stand-alone page. As there is debate as to whether the content is appropriate to merge, I am redirecting to preserve the page history, in case anyone wants to merge some of the content to the new target. Hog Farm Talk 04:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skeleton Crew (comics) edit

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

Fails WP:GNG. A Before reveals no reliable sources, so nothing to merge. Term is generic, so a redirect would be ineffective. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. This fails WP:GNG, and it honestly seems so trivial that it doesn't even deserve mention on Wikipedia. TTN (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect per above. Appears to be a minor crew that Marvel tried, without any lasting significance. No evidence of notability or outside coverage. The topic should be mentioned at an appropriate target, though, and List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations seems good per BOZ. My concern is that the target is -literally- just a list, though, without any detail on a majority of the entries. Red Skull could be another viable target for a merge, but I'll leave that to the comics editors. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 13:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Extremely minor villain team, without a single reliable, secondary source discussing them. Merging should not be done, as there is no sourced information to merge. As I have said in other AFDs, the various lists of comic related characters & teams still need to be comprised of reliably sourced information - they can't just be a dumping ground for unsourced information on subjects that warranted deletion on their own. Rorshacma (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • they can't just be a dumping ground for unsourced information on subjects that warranted deletion on their own Sure they can - "Marvel characters" is a notable subject, and having a centralized list of characters who are notable within the fiction prevents content forks. You're also conflating "unsourced" with "only primary sources". Argento Surfer (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very minor team, even within the fiction. Anyone knowledgeable enough to search the term can find information on it without the help of a redirect. If consensus is to redirect, I think Crossbones (character) would be the best target, as it actually has material on the team. Red Skull lists them as a team affiliation in the infobox and nothing else. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with the S section of List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. If any character redirect to the page, I ask that they have their links transferred to their respectful List of Marvel Comics characters pages. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations where it is mentioned. Possibly merge the lead or something, although lack of references make me disinclined to do this fancruft copy-paste myself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:48, 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) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. Bates edit

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

Subject fails to meet notability criteria. No sources cited, and Google search turns up only sales links. Pages that link to subject's page appear to mainly be user pages and other unimportant pages.Terukiyo (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. YA authors are often prolific, but serious reviews of their works can be hard to find. Bates seems to be no exception, but I was able to find some sources that rise to significant coverage of her and her work:
This ought to be sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR. pburka (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being prolific alone wouldn't meet any criteria for WP:NAUTHOR, so that's irrelevant. Disagree that two book reviews meet any of criteria 1-4. It's not difficult to pay for PW reviews (self-published books can even receive reviews for free); that the reviews are significant for book sales does not mean that every reviewed book is "significant or well-known".

Disagree that two citations meet the criterion for "widely cited by peers or successors". Also, do you have the title for the academic paper? Your link to the journal doesn't show a table of contents. Terukiyo (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I actually presented four citations,
    • Here's a fifth: Final Exam is reviewed in English Journal, Vol. 80, No. 3, (Mar 1991): 87.
    • And a sixth: The Dead Game is discussed in McCarron K. (2000) "Dead Rite: Adolescent Horror Fiction and Death." In: Avery G., Reynolds K. (eds) Representations of Childhood Death. Palgrave Macmillan
    • Regarding the JIRS paper, I can't find the title, but the Google snippet is intriguing: For the purposes of this discussion I have selected Mother's Helper (1991), by Auline Bates, as its peritextual features are particularly relevant here. The cover of the book is immediately striking, directly implicating the child in the denial...
    • As far as I know, Publishers Weekly publishes their paid reviews for self-published books in a separate "BookLife" section. Since her books aren't self-published, we should assume PW's review is independent.
    • Additionally, it appears that her books have been widely translated (at least into French and Finnish). While that's not explicitly considered by WP:NAUTHOR, I think it's evidence that her body of work is "significant or well-known".
Again, I assert that she passes WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, several of her books are notable, so we could conceivably have brief entries for two or three of them, but I think it's more sensible to keep everything on the author's page. pburka (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found by pburka and pburka's reasoning, and per WP:AUTHOR due the significant critical attention of the works. Beccaynr (talk) 02:46, 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 keep. North America1000 10:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XULRunner edit

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT, all sources are from bug trackers, mailing lists, and similar. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:GNG per the available reliable, independent, secondary sources.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Kenneth C. Feldt (2009). Programming Firefox:Building Rich Internet Applications with XUL. O'Reilly Media. pp. 374–404. ISBN 9780596553685.
  2. ^ Martin Donnelly; Mark Wallace; Tony McGuckin (2014). Mastering XPages: A Step-by-Step Guide to XPages Application Development and the XSP Language. Pearson Education. pp. 608–609. ISBN 9780133373400.
  3. ^ B. Stearn (2007). "XULRunner: A New Approach for Developing Rich Internet Applications". IEEE Internet Computing. 11 (3). IEEE: 67–73. doi:10.1109/MIC.2007.75.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first source does seem relevant, but I'm not sure about the other two. Mastering XPages covers XULRunner only in passing, among many other things. The third one appears to be connected to XUL development.
I see a lot of papers on Google Scholar, but cound not find one discussing XULRunner in detais and clearly not connected to it.
Anton.bersh (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty more sources ...[1][2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ James Lamar Williams (2012). Learning HTML5 Game Programming: A Hands-on Guide to Building Online Games Using Canvas, SVG, and WebGL. Addison-Wesley. p. 217. ISBN 9780321767363.
  2. ^ Adam Markovski; Milos Jovanovik; Dimitar Trajanov (2012). "Web extensions for semantic data creation" (PDF): 125–128. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |conference= ignored (help)
  3. ^ Diana K. Smetters; Paul Stewart (2008). "Breaking out of the Browser to Defend Against Phishing Attacks" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |conference= ignored (help)
  4. ^ Remco Bloemen; Chintan Amrit; Chintan Amrit; Stefan Kuhlmann; Gonzalo Ordóñez–Matamoros (2014). "Innovation diffusion in open source software: Preliminary analysis of dependency changes in the gentoo portage package database" (PDF): 316–319. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |conference= ignored (help)
SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone else? SailingInABathTub !voted twice.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:47, 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. Keep. Please improve the article per the impressive work of User:Cunard. Missvain (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point Blue Conservation Science edit

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

non-notable and promotional DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Salzman, James E. (June 1989). "Scientists as Advocates: The Point Reyes Bird Observatory and Gill Netting in Central California". Conservation Biology. Vol. 3, no. 2. pp. 170–180. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1989.tb00069.x. JSTOR 2386148. Retrieved 2021-05-12.

      The abstract notes: "One scientific organization, the Point Reyes Bird Observatory, was instrumental in re- solving an environmental controversy in the early 1980s over the use of gill nets off central California The gill-net fishery was killing thousands of birds annually. The Point Reyes Bird Observatory's use of its scientific data facilitated negotiation and formed the basis for the threat of litigation. These efforts spurred enforcement of federal wildlife legislation and helped forge a permanent solution acceptable to state and federal environmental agencies, conservation groups, and local fishermen."

    2. Poole, William (1989-10-15). "In Search of the Mongolian Plover". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2021-05-12. Retrieved 2021-05-12.

      The article notes: "In a way, PRBO was born of this happy circumstance of geography. In the early 1960s, members of the Western Bird Banding Association 'discovered' Point Reyes while exploring likely rare-bird spots. These passionate amateurs knew of British bird observatories where volunteers banded birds and studied avian populations in detail. In 1965, the group moved into its first building, a former bunkhouse on the Heims Ranch in the newly established Point Reyes National Seashore. Today, PRBO is a membership-based organization with a staff of about 20 professional scientists and an operating budget of more than $1 million a year.

    3. Breitrose, Charlie (1996-08-18). "Point Reyes Observatory in Fine Feather With Birds". Contra Costa Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-12. Retrieved 2021-05-12.

      The article notes: "This is what the researchers at the Point Reyes Bird Observatory's Palomarin Field Station like to see. They track the health, numbers and movements of birds in this 100-acre field of coastal brush near Bolinas. The observatory's main office, two small wooden buildings tucked off Highway 1 north of Stinson Beach, are as unobtrusive as its nets. But it is the headquarters for scientists doing research throughout the Western United States and parts of Latin America. ... The observatory started research 31 years ago. Original projects at Palomarin and at the Farallones studying seabirds, marine mammals and fish are still running."

    4. Young, Tobias (2005-01-14). "New Room to Roost: Research Group Planning Headquarters Next to Shollenberger Park". The Press Democrat. Archived from the original on 2021-05-12. Retrieved 2021-05-12.

      The article notes: "The Point Reyes Bird Observatory is moving to Petaluma. The organization, which now calls itself PRBO Conservation Science, has evolved during its 40-year history into an organization with a staff of 125, an annual budget of $6 million and a paid membership of 4,000. ... The organization does 65 percent of its work for state, federal and municipal governments, as well as nonprofit groups like the Nature Conservancy, helping to create statistics on the number of birds and other wildlife in certain ecological areas."

    5. Conant, Jane Eshleman (1969-09-28). "A Mystifying Migration of 'Foreign Birds' to Pt. Reyes". San Francisco Chronicle. p. A3.

      The article notes: "The story comes from the Point Reyes Bird Observatory, a private non-profit scientific enterprise at the southern tip of the Point of Reyes National Seashore near Bolinas. To those who work there, it's a highly rewarding center for pure research into the ecoloyg of birds — how they live, for how long, where they come from, where they go, their habitats and their physiology. To the lay visitor, it's a fascinating place where tiny, beautiful and deceptively fragile looking birds are caught in loose nylon nets, weighed, measured, blown upon, banded, sometimes de-loused, and finally set free in perfectly good condition."

    6. Doss, Margot Patterson (1971-10-10). "Birds of Point Reyes". San Francisco Chronicle.

      The article notes: "Immediately within the southern border of the Point Reyes National Seashore and totally dependent, even as are the birds it counts, on the continued wild state of the southern cliffs and forests, there is a unique and little known establishment. It is the Point Reyes Bird Observatory, started in 1965 and the first such bird observatory to be established in the United States."

    7. Gilliam, Harold (1967-11-05). "The Bird Banders Of Point Reyes". San Francisco Chronicle.

      The article notes: "It is just such mysteries of bird life that constitute the chief reason for the existence of the Point Reyes Bird Observatory, organized three years ago by ornithologists and bird enthusiasts and supported by public memberships and donations. It is the only such observatory in North America, although there are several in Europe and Asia."

    8. Hillinger, Charles (1983-12-22). "El Nino devastates sea bird population on Pacific coast". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-12. Retrieved 2021-05-12 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "The independent, non-profit Point Reyes Bird Observatory operates on a $600,000-a-year budget, 40 percent from its members, 35 percent from government contracts (National Science Foundation, Fish and Wildlife, and others) and 25 percent from corporate contributions."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Point Blue Conservation Science, founded as the Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO), to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard, with the small quibble that WP:NORG is the applicable guideline. Regardless, the coverage presented is more than adequate; numbers 1, 3, and 4 are in my view particularly substantial. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am willing to withdraw it if Cunard will actually add the material. I should have looked more carefully. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per a source review, meets WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:AUD. It does read a bit like a press release in parts, so it would benefit from copy editing to address this matter. North America1000 09:23, 20 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 General Idea#Legacy. Supporting an WP:ATD, I am encouraging we merge any worthy information to the appropriate article (can be General Idea#Legacy or whatever) and then redirect to the chosen article. Missvain (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fern Bayer edit

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

Non-notable art historian. Her notability stems from a long association with General Idea, but any coverage stemming from that association is all about GI and not about her. --- Possibly (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete none of her awards are notable by themselves, all her relevant work is with her association of GI. --hroest 00:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial merge into General Idea#Legacy. She appears to have been made the official archivist of the collective in 1995 by AA Bronson (see [2]). pburka (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Her work as curator seems to have been the kind that stays offstage and gets things done while shunning personal publicity. Which I think is a good thing, but it also means no notability for that. Searching only found her name in association with General Idea, so a mention there and a redirect make a plausible solution. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:41, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piedmont bioregion edit

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

Found a few sources with nothing more than a passing mention, not enough to write an article on. Also, am not sure what direction this was going in with a "Local Currencies" heading. Rusf10 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Some sources are promising, but they do not expand beyond a few sentences on what this is supposed to be, so SIGCOV is lacking. For the record, the "Local Currencies" heading is a reference to "PLENTY", a non-notable monetary system proposed by several NC Piedmont area communities after the Great Recession, not natural/environmentally related at all. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge This seems to be a sub-division of Piedmont (United States) similar to Piedmont region of Virginia. They all need work rather than deletion per policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See Field Guide to the Piedmont to get you started. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Andrew Davidson:A search of the source you provided shows its does not even use the term "bioregion". If that is the best source you can come up with, you have proved my point about this being insignificant. I also would like to point out that your source specifies the area it covers as between New York City and Montgomery, Alabama whereas this article defines the region as only 4 southern states.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:NOTDIC, we are not looking for exact word matches; we are concerned with the nature of the topic and that source is relevant. For another source, see Piedmont Ecoregion. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • While we need an article on Piedmont region of North Carolina, this is not that. Also, that first book you linked to is about the entire piedmont, not " the piedmont areas of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and northern Georgia as defined by the principals of bioregionalism" which seems totally contrived based off the scant source material. The existing Piedmont USA article should suffice for that material, there is nothing useful here. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • The second source I provided says that "The Piedmont Ecoregion, which lies in the area between the flat coastal plains to the southeast and the Appalachian Mountains to the northwest, covers 165,460 km2 (63,884 mi2) across parts of five states (Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia) (fig. 1)." It calls the more northerly equivalent the "Northern Piedmont Ecoregion". So, we see that there's some complex nomenclature here and it seems that different people use it in different ways. Our job is to make sense of this, as it's notable. Drive-by deletion is not helpful in this as it disrupts activity by discouraging contributions and obfuscating the content. This is contrary to our editing policy which states "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts." We're still in the "few random facts" early stages but that's not a reason to delete. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last non-bot edit to this article was in 2016. There's been 30 edits or so to this article throughout its entire existence, most of which were made over ten years ago. What "contributions" are we "discouraging" and, considering the pitiful state of the article, what content are we obfuscating? Piedmont (United States) actually contains more information about the natural condition of this region than this article. We have WP:NOPAGE for when a notable topic can't support its own page. I honestly do think there is potential for an article to be created here about a piedmont ecoregion one day. But that seems pretty far off rn. The "bioregion" doesn't exist in RS, and this article is in such a pathetic state it serves as the perfect example for WP:TNT. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's important to understand the article bioregionalism which is a philosophy on how to best organize human activity as coined by 1970s era environmentalists who are not scientists, rather a leftist/socialist re-order society around the environment philosophy. "Piedmont bioregion" only makes sense within the context of the bioregion philosophy. --GreenC 21:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GreenC:So what you saying is that "bioregion" and "ecoregion" are not the same thing?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not seeing enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show this meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 02:27, 19 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 02:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Béla Sipos edit

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

Article appears to have been almost wholly written by the subject (less some copyedits). Don't believe there to be much notability surrounding the article. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Badly sourced, with no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:PROF based notability. In particular, his economic works appear to have single-digit citations in Google Scholar, far below the standard for macroeconomics in general and for work on economic cycles more specifically. The language barrier cannot be blamed as many of these works are in English. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The research topic of Kondratiev has been controversial and new works by him have been discovered the interpretation of his life's work. Prior works discussing this will not be cited more frequently just because the status of the author had been changed. "Kondratiev's reputation has improved greatly since his formal rehabilitation by the Soviet government in 1987 and the discovery of new works he had written while in prison. These, along with new translations, were published in four monumental volumes in 1998." cited in the article. The dissertation on Kondratiev is present in a number of international libraries. Played a significant role in the rehabilitation of Farkas Heller whose work and the economics school he founded is now known to a wider public. Important text book production in support of university education before 1990. -- Effemm (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication he meets WP:NPROF. While it may be true that what he studied was controversial, but that by itself does not make him notable. The question is whether other researchers (east or west) think his work on the controversial Kondratiev was important or not, citing or discussing the work of Sipos. The argument on whether Sipos is notable cannot be tied to whether Kondratiev is rehabilitated / notable or not. --hroest 04:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not seeing the kind of impact (as measured by citations or similar) that we're looking for in WP:NPROF. There's some very local coverage in Pécs county, but it looks well short of GNG. There's one review [3] of his book Production Functions – Forecasting for Enterprise, but we'd need multiple reviews of multiple works for WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:30, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of steepest gradients on adhesion railways edit

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

There's no source for the entire list, nothing to say that whatever lines listed here are in fact the steepest gradients. Therefore it fails WP:OR as it’s original research and not verifiable. It could be renamed List of adhesion railways with steep sections or something but that would fail WP:LISTN. --Pontificalibus 13:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list is not, despite the above claims, unsourced, nor does it claim to be a complete list of the steepest rather it is explicitly "some of the steepest gradients on adhesion railways". Although having said that the source for the first entry (Calçada de São Francisco, Lisbon Tramways, Portugal) does claim "The world's steepest adhesion railway grade is a 13.8% grade found on the tram network of LIsbon, [sic] Portugal.". The list does need improvement in presentation and not all entries are sourced but these are issues that do not require deletion. The introduction to the list summarises why the list is notable, and see also Steep grade railway which this could/would be a section of if the list wouldn't overwhelm that article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim it was unsourced - sourcing individual entries is not sufficient for lists of biggest/smallest/tallest/steepest etc - the entire list needs to be sourced to verify the items presented are in fact the biggest/smallest/tallest/steepest. You're correct that it does claim in the article to list only "some” of the steepest gradients, but that's contrary to the article's title. As I said in my nomination if it is only to be a partial list of some steep railway sections then it's name should be changed to reflect that, but I doubt such a list topic would satisfy WP:N.----Pontificalibus 14:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Yes, the entries are sourced; but the list isn't. It's all well and good having the #1 entry sourced at being 13.8%, but how do we know that there isn't one steeper? We don't. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 14:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pontificalibus and SmartyPants22: The source explicitly claims it is the steepest, so unless the source is wrong (evidence please), that's that sorted. If your issue with with the title of the list deletion is not required and WP:RM is thataway. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was probably a bad example on my part. But still the point stands, for example: #2 is stated as 11.6%, what if there is one between #1 and #2? Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having a source for the steepest doesn't mean we have a source to say the second on the list is the second steepest, or that the third on the list is the third steepest. To create a list of "steepest" per the title we need all the items listed to have a source stating their position in the list (and/or a source for part or all of the ordered list). I addressed a possible re-titling in my nomination too - if this isn't to be a list of "the steepest..." then it would merely be a "list of some examples of steep..." and fail notability and probably WP:NOT criteria.----Pontificalibus 15:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but perhaps rename the article to "List of notably steep gradients on adhesion railways" or "exceptionally steep" or something like that, to remove the ranking element. NemesisAT (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, generally interesting and useful list; suitable sourcing. Details and title name are not particularly relevant to an AfD discussion. I am very unclear how the nom. should consider an article with this age with several independent contributors could have considered this suitable for the PROD prior to this AfD nomination. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Djm-leighpark: to be fair Pontificalibus did prod this (with essentially the same rationale as their nomination here) but I deprodded it (for essentially the same reasons as I give here for it being kept). Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf:: Thankyou for spotting and dePRODing this to avoid the wastage of people's effort that brought this article to its current albeit imperfect state. I'd note in passing RHaworth good faith moved to the current name back some 11 years ago so possible they may have any comment on a title change. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark 11:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"interesting and useful" isn't a sufficient reason to keep, but is it even useful if it just lists some random railways that someone thinks are steep.----Pontificalibus 15:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pray goad all ye like. Bit sad the Lickey isn't on the list, and its a pity the length of the gradient isn't listed also, but there we have it. A steep enough gradient can be a operating limiting factor for a railway; George Stephenson frowned at anything over 1 in 300 from memory; Lock would go to 1 in 75 from memory.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's why the steepness of adhesion railways is best tackled in Adhesion railway. We're unable to list the steepest adhesion railways because the sources don't exist - most sources give a single example of a steep section on a railway, much better to use these examples in the Adhesion railway article, rather than try and create our own ordered list of railways and/or sections of railway ordered using original research.----Pontificalibus 05:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sources, it just needs more of them. This is clearly something that gets mentioned, it a notable thing. Dream Focus 14:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: Can you point to a single reliable source that lists the steepest gradients on adhesion railways? If not, how can you claim this a notable thing? ----Pontificalibus 15:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not notice the 16 references in the article already? A few brief moments of using the reliable source search at the top of this AFD and I find https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42384814 Dream Focus 15:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources in the article discuss the topic of "steepest gradients on adhesion railways" or list the steepest such railways. The source you give above is about a single funicular railway, which is a different kind of railway not relevant to this article.----Pontificalibus 15:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I ain't a civils but it doesn't have to be in the article, but oclc 67899506 looks good for starters.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Google news shows https://jalopnik.com/cruise-through-this-holiday-weekend-on-the-front-of-a-t-1846612571 which reads: “The Bernina railway sets a few records, including being the highest railway alpine crossing in Europe (2253m), the highest adhesion railway of the continent, the open air railway with the greatest height difference (1824m) and furthermore one of the steepest adhesion railways (conventional railway without cogs) worldwide, with gradients of up to 7 percent.” Being one of the steepest adhesion railways is apparently noteworthy and it list the gradients. Sources that cover trains of this type cover this information. Most of the trains on the list have their own Wikipedia article, this is a logical sorting of things by a notable feature they are known for. Dream Focus 18:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again a source that gives an example of a section on a railway, claiming it's one of the steepest (although it doesn't make our top 10), but giving no exact figures so we don't have enough information on where to insert it in our list - would this go before or after "Red Marble Grade"? Is this really 1 in 14.2 or is it 1 in 14? Sources are too vague and don't cover this aspect in enough detail for us to create a proper ordered list ourselves, which is probably why no reliable sources present their own ordered list, - it's not really achievable with an acceptable degree of accuracy. We'd be much better off therefore to discuss the best examples in a prose article rather than trying and failing to create an accurate list. --Pontificalibus 05:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@@Pontificalibus: Well if it was a merge you were after that was pretty vexacious to PROD it. We remain happily within context of LISTN guideline anyway. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are world-famous railway locations, many of which are recognised upon reading the list. These are locations people go to take photographs - of trains, of the steep grades, of the former right-of-way locations. The per-cent notation in the listing is critically important and of significant interest to railfans and tramway buffs. Maybe rename the article to "List of notably steep gradients on adhesion railways", or like this. This is a significant listing. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We don't need the list to be sourced in its entirety to a single source, which is what those arguing for deletion seem to be implying. What we need is sources that establish that the topic is notable (which does not seem to be a serious area of contention in this case), and sources that give the numerical values for each entry. Ordering the list by numerical value is to my eye self-evidently covered by WP:Routine calculations. The possibility that the list is incomplete is not a reason to delete the list—we have {{Incomplete list}} for that exact situation—but it is a reason not to rank the list (are we sure number 33 is really number 33 and not number 34?), which indeed we don't with this one. These arguments apply to all lists of superlatives by numerical values. For instance: if a new film is released that would qualify to be included on the list of longest films, we don't need to wait for some external source to provide an updated version of the list that includes the new film, we can simply add it in the proper spot by noting that e.g. 8 hours is longer than 7 hours but shorter than 9 hours. TompaDompa (talk) 23:42, 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. Missvain (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Phillips (journalist) edit

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

Already deleted in 2015, now restored by an UK IP that looks like Phillips himself and the article basically looks like a copy-paste of his resume with a ton of link "done video here, done video there". Arguments for his non-notability haven't really changed since 2015 when he was a cameraman working for Russia Today, now he's a youtuber and that's pretty much all he's known for. Cloud200 (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just checked Phillips' YouTube channel and he's been reporting from Croatia recently, so, nice one on that 'UK IP that looks like Phillips'.... 82.47.239.230 (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that he's covered by multiple secondary sources (Ukrainian, Russian and other) such as RFE/RL [4] and Ukrainian Independent Information Agency [5]. Can you explain why the WP:BASIC criteria are not met? Alaexis¿question? 08:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because the WP:BASIC criteria are intentionally vague to facilitate discussions like we have. Phillips had been indeed mentioned a few times in the news, but these are all mentions critical of his actions like taking part of torture of an Ukrainian soldier or desecrating the grave of Bandera. In my opinion these do not make him any more notable than any other youtuber that does scandalous stuff to get more views. There's not a single WP:RS that would discuss the "phenomenon of Graham Phillips" or an interview suggesting he's a public figure. So while formally you could argue Phillips bio satisfies WP:BASIC, I would argue it satisfies it barely, only by means of having a few international mentions here and there, but at the same time fells into the clear guidance that discourages creating separate bios of people who are only known for such PR stunts, as mentioned in WP:PERP and WP:ENT. Cloud200 (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain how his covering the Russo-Ukrainian War for several years, as one of the notable western journalists to do that, like his reportage or not, counts as a 'PR stunt'.... 82.47.239.230 (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that he is on both the Russian, and Ukrainian wikipedia, largely for his work in the Russo-Ukrainian War - Филлипс,_Грэм_(журналист) , Грем_Філліпс - which again does not match your description of 'PR stunts'. 82.47.239.230 (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero reason WP:BASIC are not met here, it seems to be an Adhominem by Cloud200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.224.247 (talk • contribs)

Hundreds of journalists, cameramen, bloggers and youtubers cover the Russo-Ukrainian War, yet it doesn't make them notable for Wikipedia. Presence of an article in Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia may indicate he was considered notable in these Wikipedias, but doesn't have any impact on his notability here. Cloud200 (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If our policies against autobiographies are to mean anything, we need to delete them whenever we find them.12:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
It's very hard, actually impossible to believe here that you are being objective, and upholding the standards, and ideals of Wikpedia. You clearly have a highly negative view of Phillips, and his work, which is entirely compromising your actions here. 82.47.239.230 (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wanted to find information on British journalist Graham Phillips, mostly known for his coverage of the war in Ukraine, and found it here. His work has been covered in multiple, international sources, not always positively, but surely there is no question of his notability. Strange that this page is up for deletion. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.224.247 (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus, if Phillips wrote it himself, which Cloud200 claims, then why so much criticism about him? I'm not even a huge fan of Phillips, but this feels like someone has a personal vendetta against him.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.224.247 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete This has too many primary sources, self-promotional links to the subject’s own commercial YouTube feed, and questionable sources listed at WP:RSP. Let’s remove all that and see if there’s an encyclopedic article left in there. I’ll not support it in the current form. —Michael Z. 14:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, this is the original form. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 17:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is on both the Russian and Ukrainian wikipedia, he himself is British. What reason could there be that he is not here?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.206.242 (talk • contribs) — 195.147.206.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Articles on wikipedia should be determined by their notability, and only that, not by bias of certain wikipedia editors against them. Phillips clearly meets notability criteria as per WP:BASIC. user:Lesya PZ 17:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I’m uncertain of the notability status but per TNT the article needs a fundamental re-write from a neutral stance or POV. Celestina007 (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I actually did a few early edits on the Phillips page as I was looking to build editing experience on Wikipedia, before creating an account. So it's a) a bit surreal, and b) disheartening to see some of what's written here. Accusing Phillips of creating and then editing his own page, as Cloud200 has done seems actually slanderous, unless there is solid proof, which there couldn't be because the page was created by Solavirum and then worked on by over a dozen editors. I was surprised that there wasn't already a page on Phillips on Wikipedia, so when it was created with not much there it was easy to populate because there is plenty of information about him online. Ok, I'm a new editor and still learning the ropes so if some of the edits I made didn't match NPOV then surely that is where a more senior editor steps in, and edits to get it to Wikipedia standards. However, instead of that, the article has been left as it is, and all the effort focused on getting it deleted, for what seems like clearly political reasons. Phillips clearly meets the WP:BASIC standards - I've read and read over them again and there's no way he doesn't meet them. So surely the thing to do is end counter-productive disputes such as this, and all work together to make this page, and all of Wikipedia better? I'm sorry if that sounds a bit cliched, or idealistic but surely you can see where I'm coming from? 82.47.239.230 (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find it highly unlikely that an independent editor would go through the whole effort to create specific sections dedicated to "Journalism by Location", "Journalism by Theme" whose purpose is basically nothing more than listing videos done here and there, including unsourced sentences such as "However, despite Ukrainian efforts, Phillips is not known to have faced any charges, or any measures taken against him, in the United Kingdom" which are typically found in first-hand statements denying various allegations. There are facts in the article that are unsourced but speak in great detail of his personal interests ("He holds a keen interest in the dormant British car manufacturer Rover, he owns several vehicles of this brand and they are often a notable feature in his video reportage. He has reported extensively from the Longbridge plant.") which are not found in any articles. So yes, it is still my impression based on my experience that this article was written by either Phillips himself or someone close, such as a relative, friend or paid PR/SEO consultant. Cloud200 (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could it also be that your own clearly negative view of Phillips means that you can only believe that anything written about him not in the negative must be by 'relative, friend or paid PR/SEO consultant'? All of the points you've mentioned can be easily found in any of his video reportage, or across media, also from the Russian / Ukrainian wikipedia entries on him. I am new to wikipedia, you are clearly a senior, and very respected editor here, but it seems to me that you don't like him, and are therefore making your 'impressions' suit that position, rather than looking at things objectively.... 82.47.239.230 (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I explained in details why I have this impression. You don't argue with any of these items, and instead resort to an ad hominem argument. Cloud200 (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't argue because I don't want to argue - I'd rather do something positive on Wikipedia. As I say, I'm a new editor, haven't even decided my username yet. I respect your contribution and length of time on Wikipedia, but clearly here you are acting not as Wikipedian, but somethign with a political / personal vendetta. And it's certainly ironic to accuse of me ad hominem after all the abuse you've written about Phillips. However, to take you up on a point, I looked over and saw that there is almost no pesonal information about Phillips on the page - surely if it were a source 'close to him', as you state, they would have access to this information, as it is, there is nothing. Everything referenced in the article is clearly sourced, searchable, accountable. As I say, you've made a huge contribution to Wikipedia over many years, but here you are letting your own personal agenda get in the way of making Wikipedia a better place..... 82.47.239.230 (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's my very point. You don't dispute the issues I raised above, you just run and accuse everyone who thinks this autobiography is not notable of "political vendetta". That's textbook definition of ad hominem. Also be sure to read WP:NOTFORUM. Cloud200 (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I accept your point, and apologise if I did anything incorrectly - I'm still a new Wikipedia editor, not even registered here yet. I've made major edits to the Phillips article and stripped out anything that does not meet Wikipedia standards as per WP:NOTFORUM. 82.47.239.230 (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Not notable. And it's clear that all these IP edits are Philips himself. Sloutsch (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets notability criteria several times over, way too much bias and personal agendas going on here..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.138.201 (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The multiple, largely co-located IPs participating here, with few edits to their names, some only on this subject, should be aware that these facts are evident about them.
To those proclaiming the notability of the subject, there is so much in the article which is not supported, not supported by the sources given, the source given is primary or not clearly reliable in Wikipedia terms that the impression is given that there is nothing to support notability. Drastically prune out all this dead wood if you want to highlight any remaining which does actually establish notability. It is perfectly valid to use citations in foreign languages but, as most English speakers can't establish its content or reliability, relying solely on these when the English language ones are not credible would be too much to ask. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the other IPs, and it seems 'largely co-located' means mostly in the UK, which would seem plausible. I'm in the UK and I've given my reasons above for being an IP at this stage. What you state clearly has a point, and I accept that I may be to blame for some of how the article looks - I saw the article on Phillips was sparse, and rushed to fill it in because I thought this was for the best for Wikipedia. If I've made misjudgements in this then, as a new Wikipedia user - this is the first time I've edited anything, and the only article I've edited here, and I'm still an IP address, then ok, I accept that. From what you say, I should have focused more on citations, than primary sources. However, surely it would be possible for other, more experienced Wikipedians to edit, and correct that? Or should I have a go at pruning? For whatever my errors, the move to delete the article on Phillips outright is surely also driven by personal and political motivations - user Cloud200 for example has made several ad hominem remarks against Phillips which would surely indicate a personal bias, even contempt, and that this editor does not have the requisite objectivity to be involved here. My own position on Phillips is pretty simple - I'm a viewer of his YouTube channel, general follower of his work, don't necessarily idealize him, and actually I added in several criticisms on the article. He is clearly notable enough to be on Wikipedia, just as you say, the question is in what format. I'm only making contributions here, for now, rather than the article as it would be great to get it resolved, I'll register with a username on Wikipedia, and we can all go forward positively in the true spirit of Wikipedia. 82.47.239.230 (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no objection to editing as an IP. My point regarded what the co-location may indicate and much of it is very considerably closer than "in the UK".
Whatever anyone participating here thinks of Phillips is neither here nor there in regard to the article in its current form. It is so crammed with chaff that wheat is not readily evident. Should anyone be motivated purely by bias, and I see no indication of this, they can have a field day anyway. You do realise notability has specific definition here and is not a subjective view on the subject's worth?
By all means prune away but it will have to be copious and what is left must establish notability from reliable sources. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, at your suggestion am pruning away. And, as I say, I will be becoming a fully-fledged Wikipedian soon, but I know then that everything I do goes on record, and wanting a perfect record I'm practicing as an IP. I accept your points, and acknowledge that some of my earlier edits were not to Wikipedia standard. I'm pruning now, working towards that, will hopefully resolve this, learn from it, and go onto other articles as a Wikipedian! Thank you 82.47.239.230 (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history is as evident as an IP as it is as a registered editor and, it may not be what you are attempting to convey but I'm uneasy about the notion of practising as an IP to avoid imperfections being recorded. Genuine errors as a beginner will receive some slack, registered or not; attempts to obscure your history will be viewed differently. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted - I am trying to do everything correctly, including choosing the correct username for myself, thank you for the advice. As you suggested, I've pruned the Phillips article, and also removed all primary sources, so it's really over to you now. 82.47.239.230 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This should be useful in checking the reliability, or otherwise, of sources. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for everything Mutt Lunker!! 82.47.239.230 (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regarding notability, this guy was mentioned in the Russian news sites like RIA and Gazeta many times, especially since 2014. The article does look autobiographic though. Therefore, I'd recommend cleaning it up instead of deleting. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm leaning towards delete. I'd like some more established editors to look this over.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: barely notable, the IP Edits indeed look like self-promo, needs 100% NPOV re-write CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry, I'm not a super-dooper wikipedia editor, but what is going on here? This guy is a well known journalist, has been referenced all over the place, and for many years. I'm not even a huge fan of his, but for sure there should be an article on him on wikipedia - and you want to delete it?? This seems pretty much like extreme wikipedia deletionism going on, shame.... 95.214.66.65 (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)— 95.214.66.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep The sources on the page look like easily enough to meet general notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, take it to AfC Fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for journalists. Just another journalist. The article has multiple issues. I tried to fix some of them and it turned out that the article was written by someone who was trying to promote the subject of the article: original research, synthesis, omission, adding multiple irrelevant source for a single statement just to create the illusion of significant coverage. The main sources in the article are either sources with borderline reliability or, in general, sources with completely unknown status. It may seem that the article cites many independent English-language sources, but look at each of them separately. Some of them are either small unknown sources or Russian-language small sources with incorrectly filled citation parameters. If one of the editors really believes that this subject can have an article, then I see no problem to go through AfC.--Renat 09:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm the one who listed it for AfD, so I will just reiterate issues with this article: the person barely satisfies WP:BASIC if stretched, but also goes against WP:PERP and WP:ENT. The article was written in self-promotional style, inflated with links to non-notable WP:PRIMARY sources, mostly YouTube videos of Phillips himself, some personal details (like that on cars) were completely unsourced indicating insider knowledge and personal relationship to the subject. The article is being pushed by a single IP user that didn't even have time/interest to register an account for over a month but is very vocal on this discussion, along with a number of other IP users. All other participants note low quality of the article. Edits so kindly made by User:RenatUK did clean up all the self-promotional content but even now the article is mostly sourced by self-published sources such as medium.com, YouTube and obscure Russia Today spin-offs. A few WP:RS sources mention him in the context of specific events such as arrests or provocative PR stunts, which goes clearly against WP:PERP and WP:ENT. When these are sifted, there's nothing much left apart from "a journalist born 1979" so I believe the proposal to delete and take it to AfC as proposed above is the most reasonable one. Cloud200 (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and comment - so I had been following this discussion but before now I don't join in because I am seeing how much people here hate edits by IP addresses - sorry guys, that is just how many of us are using Wiki. So the comments by Cloud200 make me want to add something - I get that Cloud200 really doesn't like Phillips, and looks for everything negative, but when he says that 'the article is mostly sourced by self-published sources such as medium.com, YouTube and obscure Russia Today spin-offs' then I am gonna call bs. Just 5 examples -

1. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-27503743 - BBC 2. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/maxseddon/how-a-british-blogger-became-an-unlikely-star-of-the-ukraine#.vs68mYGvd - BuzzFeed 3. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/21/british-journalist-graham-phillips-detained-east-ukraine - The_Guardian 4. https://balkaninsight.com/2019/03/11/uk-journalist-banned-from-twitter-angers-some-in-kosovo/ - Balkan_Insight 5. https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/perth-kinross/547116/exclusive-tayside-journalist-worked-russia-today-rubbishes-claims-alex-salmond-will-become-putins-puppet/ - The_Courier_(Dundee)

I could go on, but let me say this, that this debate does not look professional from Wikipedia point of view, Wikipedia risks to loose credibility - this seems like it is some kind of friends' club and only allowed on Wikipedia is people the Wikipedia admins like, and if they do not like you they write bs about subject to give a reason to delete page. It's like the school playground..... 195.133.224.50 (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my very point — you listed about all WP:RS sources from the article that even mention Phillips, and that's about it. You cay you "could go on" but you really couldn't. Out of the sources you listed 1 and 3 talk about the same event (arrest in Ukraine, WP:PERP applies). Number 4 is once again coverage of a single event Phillips participated in (Twitter ban). Then number 5 is an article about Salmond where Phillips is expressing his opinion and nothing more. Finally number 2 is the only article that offers a broader perspective on Phillip activities and biography, but even it calls him "a marginal character". You can raise your tone and apply ad hominem arguments as much as you like, but this won't change the fact the person in subject is precisely what BuzzFeed called him − "a marginal character". Oh, and I'm not even an Wiki admin, and I don't know any of the editors voicing their comments here (not even from IRC). Whatever will be decided about the fate of this article, is OK with me, I made my comments. Cloud200 (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, then Graham Phillips is obviously notable enough to be here, he is the well-known journalist, a lot Russia, but not only. I do not think that this negativety here about Phillips is appropriate, imho. He is what he is, the well-known journalist - I see the last comment says from an article that he is a "marginal character", but this article is from 2014, and since then he is quite mainstream. Andrey.
  • Comment I read over this more and see that the same user Cloud200 who started this AfD then writes a stream of negative comments about Phillips, and even votes themself for the article to be deleted. I am only the 'IP address user' of Wikipedia it is true, but this seems to me not correct, not like a fair debate, or Wikipedia protocol, but like a campaign against the subject, Phillips. By the way there has been an article on him on the Russian wikipedia for many years, no problems, and here, all these problems and arguments..... Interesting. Andrey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.59.138.0 (talk) 10:50, 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 Vikruthi. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emcy Joseph edit

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

Nonnotable Director released just one film. Fails to pass WP:FILMMAKER & WP:GNG Sonofstar (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vikruthi. He has received some media coverage. However, the primary topic of the news sources is his film and for this reason, it be redirected to Vikruthi. Moreover, he has directed two films Vikruthi and Ennittu Avasanam.[6]. I don't think deletion is preferred over "redirect". Also, the film actor has been awarded Kerala State Film Award for Best Actor for Joseph's dictatorial film. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appeal - I want to know the reason why this article is nominated for deletion. I'm one who follows Malayalam film industry and cinemas. So, I decided to create a Wikipedia article for him. His film won a state award and many more achievements. After all, He is a director, Screenwriter. You can check the reference links in the article published in top Indian portals. Please do the needful. It's not about how many projects he completed, it's about how popular and how much achieved director he is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgnew (talk • contribs)
*Comment - Sorry dear but he is not notable. His film might be notable but not him. All the news sources are mainly talking about his film and there is no indepth coverage about him. Notability doesn't mean popularity. Sonofstar (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm just curious to know onething!! How someone who is not in this field can judge his popularity. If you're from this particular place, Then it's okey. On what basis, you're arguing he is not popular. I'm from his place, which he lives and working in malayalam films. So I decided to create a wiki page for him. Because I love to edit and contribute to articles. I don't know what's wrong with this.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Clear consensus that the article meets the general notability guideline per presented sources. (non-admin closure) versacespaceleave a message! 01:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MooTools edit

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. All references are either directly from project's release notes or website or a single self-published book. Note that the previous AfD received no votes and closed with "no consensus". Anton.bersh (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Below are a couple of sources found on Google Scholar. Additional sources are available on Google Scholar as well.
– North America1000 20:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting this here. (I wanted to reply to your original comment on the first AfD discussion, but it was already closed when I saw it.)
If you look closely, these two articles are from the same authors published on the same day in the same journal in the same volume (just on different pages). Also, the papers seem to be missing some indication of peer-review present in other papers published in this journal. Based on this, I'm not sure think this research was properly peer-reviewed. I'm not familiar with technicalities of what's relable and what's not and Wikipedia:Reliable sources is not particularly helpful in this case.
I managed to find some books about on this topic:
- "MooTools Essentials" by Aaron Newton, Apress. (Note that Aaron Newton is member of MooTools organization on GitHub and might not count as a releable independent source.)
- "Pro JavaScript with MooTools" by Mark J. Obcena, Apress. (Also member of MooTools organization on GitHub, etc.)
- "MooTools 1.2" by Jacob Gube and Garrick Cheung, Pack publishing. (Jacob Gube is also member of MooTools organization on GitHub.)
Can any of these sources be considered reliable third-party sources?
Anton.bersh (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:26, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Stone edit

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

whoopdeedoooooo a guy with 20k followers and no coverage does not even meet the basic criteria for inclusion here. No coverage, zip, nada. YODADICAE👽 23:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about this man: [7] WoahCoin (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am in fact talking about the same person, yes. YODADICAE👽 04:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I don't see how individuals like Simply Nailogical, Oli White, and Zach Hadel meet notability requirements but not Chester Stone. WoahCoin (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE isn't a valid argument. YODADICAE👽 14:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE can be used in a valid argument, I'm not saying it's a catch-all. The dude has a legitimate online following. I will admit that media coverage on him is not as abundant as certain others, but it's important to also keep in mind that he's an indigent minority with far less resources than the individuals listed above WoahCoin (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no media coverage, which is why he isn't notable. YODADICAE👽 14:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even check the references list? WoahCoin (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the non-existent ones? YODADICAE👽 20:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WoahCoin, there is a existent references list, but the only sources listed are WP:PRIMARY sources, meaning the pages were created or self-published by him. The amount of WP:INDEPENDENT sources is how we determine whether an article stays or goes; profile pages on other social media sites isn't independent coverage. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for actually helping @HumanxAnthro. Does CL Tampa qualify as independent? I can dig deeper and see what else I can find, I agree that this may perhaps be Wikipedia:TOOSOON. When I undertook this project, I hadn't realized his original account was deleted/suspended, which I believe would've helped me trace down more sources. WoahCoin (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You must keep in mind that using posts from his account don't establish notability. Remember, we're looking for sources independent of the subject. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or Dratify at best. The statement that there's "no coverage" on this man isn't entirely true, as I did find one CiTampa article on the guy, but that's still only one article about him and it's local coverage, which is not enough to meet GNG. His Instagram started only two months ago, and if he's gaining so many followers in such a short time, that maybe a sign he'll gain coverage from national reliable sources in the future, but we can't predict that. This is a WP:TOOSOON scenario. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough coverage from independent reliable sources to meet verifiability standards. Follower counts are not reliable metrics of anything. I'd also ask the nominator not to bite the newbies.Citing (talk) 23:15, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Band edit

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD has a better search link and I found the following: https://www.deadpress.co.uk/album-review-secret-band-lp2/ https://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/63672/Secret-Band-Secret-Band/ https://www.billboard.com/music/secret-band/chart-history/VNL/song/1133002 https://www.allmusic.com/artist/secret-band-mn0001780377/biography but no album reviews . Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-- The first two links are album reviews. If you read WP:MUSICBIO, you can see that there is a simple criteria for notability of releasing two albums (#5), they also meet requirement #2 as shown in the billboard link — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Hero56 (talk • contribs) 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete: per nom, failing WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG, no major record label, no chart CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard shows they did chart, are on a notable label, and there is enough coverage for WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is enough coverage for WP:GNG in my view including an AllMusic staff written bio, album reviews by Deadpress and Sputnik Music together with the Billboard entry which shows charting but is unclear as to which Billboard chart, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - AllMusic staff bio, Billboard chart placement, and some album reviews add up to enough coverage to satisfy WP:NBAND, at least for a basic stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:44, 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 no consensus. Cunard's work is once again excellent, and is directly speaking to the heart of the deletion rationale provided. In 10 days, his comments and sources were not analysed or refuted, therefore I have no choice to close this discussion as if they are default accepted as meeting GNG/RS etc. On that basis, there is no alternative way for me to close this discussion than a keep/ncs close, and given the fragmented nature of the discussion, I believe no consensus is best. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Kinsella (journalist and tech entrepreneur) edit

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

Supposed BLP with no BLP references. First eight references are anything but. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. 3 socks in the last Afd and it was corrupt. References have not been improved for a BLP. scope_creepTalk 15:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What has notability got to do with it, when there is no references to prove it is a BLP. Not one BLP reference is present. scope_creepTalk 22:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Last AfD was gamed by two sockfarms (Brandon Lapin SPI and some related to SpareSeiko SPI). I wouldn't consider it as a precedent. MarioGom (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom: As the closer of the last AfD, I would agree that this should be considered anew and independently from the last AfD due to the large number of now-blocked socks that were in that AfD. Of course, that does not preclude an editor from repeating the same arguments if they still find them to be valid. — MarkH21talk 00:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The previous AfD was closed with a very clear consensus of Keep. Even if you discard Lapin's votes, you still had several other Keep votes, and good solid arguments for notability, wothout a single Delete vote. This is a clear, deliberate, bad-faith violation of WP:BEFORE, you cannot claim that there is no evidence for notability when the prior AfD cited multiple reasons for notability.

    As I pointed out in the previous AfD If the article itself is factually correct, then the subject must be notable. Former Vice President at Microsoft, President of MSNBC.com, Chairman and CEO of World Online, Chairman and CEO of Interoute Communications, etc. Look, even if he was a figurehead (and I see no reason to assume this), simply holding those roles should have generated significant reliable sources about the subject. And I see that at least one of those companies, World Online, appears to have been involved in some sort of controversy around the time of the dot-com bust, which ought to have generated even more coverage and thus more RS. In addition to the sources already cited, it may be worth looking through the relevant articles on those other companies to see if they contain further good sources that mention Mr. Kinsella. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperion35: See this: If the article itself is factually correct, then the subject must be notable How does that even make sense. It is absurd and contentious and mostly meaningless. Please do not post up anywhere again. It is meaningless. scope_creepTalk 21:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to strike and rephrase that remark in a civil manner? I apologize if the meaning was unclear, but what I was trying to say is that if this individual has held those positions, if the basic biographic details are correct, then the subject almost certainly passes GNG. You are welcome to disagree with my assertion, and I would welcome a civil discussion of how to interpret GNG in the context of Mr. Kinsella's accomplishments, and compare sources, etc. What you are not welcome to do is to tell me, or any other editor, please do not post up anywhere again. I will AGF and consider that you may be having a bad day, but this behavior is not acceptable. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperion35: Sorry if it a bit harsh. It is a bit harsh. In any article, there need to be some kind of standout information that makes the person special somehow. A person doing their day job, doesn't automatically make them notable, even if they are a president of very large company. There is subtle distinction there. In this category, of being president, then there is probably at least 3 million people in the US who are presidents of some company, and a minority of the say 5-10% are presidentd of large to very large companies, so that 10% as an example, is 30,000. That alone is huge figure, when but combined with population of the earth, we are global encyclopedia, and everybody is equal, it probably close to 3 million mark, as an example, who are presidents of sizable organisation. It could NGO's, a goverment organisation, a quango, a gangster organisation, so it a very very large category. So doing their day job, doesn't automatically make them notable. There is more too it. scope_creepTalk 21:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is why it matters what the companies are. MSNBC.com I don't think needs much explanation. World Online was a major European ISP covering 16 countries and millions of customers, but more important for the purposes of our article, it appears to have been involved in some scandals related to the turn of the century dot-com bubble and bust. The Wikipedia article on that company mentions alleged insider trading, but doesn't seem to have much sourcing either. Kinsella then went on to head Interoute, Europe's largest cloud service provider, before it was eventually sold for several billion dollars or euros. So my point is simply given being in charge of such large and highly notable companies, and especially given a possible scandal at one of them, I find it difficult to believe that there are not sufficient sources out there. Bear in mind that some of this occurred 20 years ago at a time when many online news sources were born and died, so it may require searching for offline sources as well. To be clear, I am saying more than just a vague "there must be sources", but a more specific claim that there are good reasons to assume that these sources must exist. This was discussed in the previous AfD, I was not the only one to make this point. Nobody appeared to have objected to this assertion at that time. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperion35: Where is the reference to support the article. Does WP:V and WP:BIO not matter? scope_creepTalk 21:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Saying that somebody is notable because they were VP or CEO of a company is not a policy-based argument. Plenty of high up corporate executives are not notable. This article appears to be built upon a WP:CITEBOMB to make the subject appear at a glance to be notable, but these sources do not cover the subject of this Wiki article in the level of depth that is required for GNG. I wonder if the people who said keep in the first nom looked closely at the sources or were fooled by the sheer number of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Dudley, Brier (1999-04-23). "CEO going for the green locally - MSNBC chief backs environmentalists". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.

      The article notes: "Kinsella is identified only as a "programmer" on public-disclosure reports, but nationally he's known for developing Time Warner's Pathfinder Internet site, leading Microsoft's news venture with NBC and founding the Internet Content Coalition to self-regulate online publishers. A former newspaper reporter and editor at the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner and San Jose Mercury News, Kinsella has authored several books, including an analysis of the media's handling of the AIDS crisis."

    2. Scott, Mark (2015-06-09). "European Cloud Companies Play Up Privacy Credentials". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.

      The article notes: "James Kinsella is an unlikely champion for European technology. The 55-year-old American is a former Microsoft executive who previously ran MSNBC.com, the news website. Yet Mr. Kinsella, who has spent the last 15 years in Europe, is now backing Europe’s efforts to enforce its tough data privacy rules across the region — and potentially further afield."

    3. "Kinsella, James 1959-". Encyclopedia.com. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.

      The entry notes: "James Kinsella is a celebrated media mogul, having earned a name for himself as the chairman of major media corporations such as Time Warner and MSNBC.com. He has held senior positions at other technology and media organizations such as World Online and Interoute." Sources from the entry:

      Sources

      Journalism Quarterly, autumn, 1990, James K. Hertog, review of Covering the Plague, pp. 623-624.

      Journal of Health, Politics, Policy, and Law, spring, 1991, David C. Colby, review of Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media, pp. 176-181.

      Library Journal, February 1, 1990, James E. Van Buskirk, review of Covering the Plague, p. 91.

      Los Angeles Times Book Review, April 8, 1990, p. 5.

      Nature, August 9, 1990, Don C. Des, review of Covering the Plague, p. 521.

      New York Times Book Review, May 6, 1990, H. Jack Geiger, review of Covering the Plague, p. 23.

      Publishers Weekly, January 19, 1990, Genevieve Stuttaford, review of Covering the Plague, pp. 92-93.

      Washington Post Journalism Review, July-August 1990, Timothy Cook, review of Covering the Plague, p. 39.

    4. Book reviews:
      1. Lichter, S. Robert (1990-03-26). "Did quiet press help spread AIDS?". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.

        The book review notes: "It is the argument of James Kinsella's flawed but fascinating book Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media that ignorance and prejudice prevented the mainstream media from covering the AIDS epidemic more 'promptly, vigorously, and forthrightly.'"

      2. Clifford, Jane (1990-04-13). "AIDS -- the news that wasn't fit to print?". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.

        The book review notes: "Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media, by James Kinsella. Rutgers University Press: 299 pages; $22.95. THE AIDS crisis may be the best-ever situation to apply the old adage: Hindsight is 20/20. ... The book is a sobering account of how this country and its people approached AIDS. It's part in-depth report, part editorial -- in every chapter."

      3. Shaw, David (1990-05-27). "A critical look at the media's record on AIDS coverage". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.

        The book review notes: "Kinsella, former editorial-page editor at the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, provides a detailed, damning account of media insensitivity, indifference and ignorance, of media squeamishness and sensationalism throughout the early months and years of the AIDS epidemic."

      4. Geiger, H. Jack (1990-05-06). "In Short; Nonfiction". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.

        The book review notes: "The early years of the epidemic are much more clearly understood now than they were then. But the book is replete with egregious overstatements, like the claim that no one is writing, even today, about preventable tragedies afflicting the poor, minorities and the homeless."

      5. Michal-Johnson, P. (Winter 1991). "A tale of intrigue". Journal of Communication. 41 (1): 155. ISSN 0021-9916.

        The abstract notes, "Reviews the book `Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media,' by James Kinsella."

      6. Van Buskirk, James E. (1990-02-01). "Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media (Book)". Library Journal. Vol. 115, no. 2. p. 91.

        The abstract notes, "Reviews the book "Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media," by James Kinsella."

      7. "Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.

        This is a book review.

      8. Weinberg, Steve (1990-04-29). "AIDS and the news media: the personal connection". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10 – via Newspapers.com.

        The book review notes: "Unlike many media critics, James Kinsella understands that what gets reported and what gets ignored or twisted are almost always functions of individual journalists — not of a conspiracy by the newslords."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow James Kinsella to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Cunard's work?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:21, 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 merge to California High-Speed Rail. czar 02:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chowchilla Wye edit

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

This structure does not exist yet, in fact it is not even under construction or fully funded yet. Unclear if it will be. In terms of the sourcing, the closest thing to significant coverage is reference 6 (Fresno Bee) but this is an item that could be incorporated into the main high speed rail article Nweil (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeSignificant coverage is also given in reference 1: "Bullet train has 4 route options around one California town as foes plan court appeal". being (currently) unfunded and (currently) not under construction has no bearing on the validity of discussing the subject: see Mid-Pacific Railroad, North–South Rail Link, etc. Article describes an unusual structure on the line, such as the Oakland Wye, Keddie Wye, Pacheco Pass Tunnels, etc. -MJ (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I want to second-motion for this article to be merged and redirected with the California High-Speed Rail under the 'Route and stations' heading. Citations are perfectly reliable, but it just doesn't seem worthy to have it's own dedicated page. Thanks. JayzBox (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Agreed that there is significant coverage already. The article that this is proposed to be merged into is already rather long (100,000 bytes) so I think it is better to keep this information as a seperate page. NemesisAT (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An article about an unbuilt piece of infrastructure on the unbuilt track of an non-existent railway, sourced by passing mentions in local newspapers and news sources. No redirect, because what would it redirect FROM? --Calton | Talk 00:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into California High-Speed Rail. Not only has it not been built, but they haven't even finished deciding if they want to build it. Obviously, this will have an article the second the shovel hits the ground (or, indeed, the second the pen hits the paper) but for now it's kind of a meme. jp×g 06:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:20, 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Srini Kumar edit

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

Sources are either broken or non-existent. Page reads like a resume. Of the sources that are available, they are placed on oddly construed websites and not verifiable. Megtetg34 (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Dismiss. Not knowing about a topic is not the same as a topic not being notable. Also, notability does not expire. Furthermore, WP:INTROTODELETE says:
When to not use deletion process?
  • Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing.
As notability is not at issue, nor is WP:POV, WP:OR, or WP:NOT at issue, there isn't a valid deletion reason. These are WP:SOFIXIT reasons.
Moreover, link rot is also not a deletion reason. Link rot should be addressed via WP:DEADREF.
These are issues for cleanup, not for deletion. - Keith D. Tyler 08:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, I totally disagree with you. None of the sources are verifiable, and there have been no additional sources found online to establish notability. Page reads like a resume. I'm going to let the AFD stand. Megtetg34 (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm asking over at WT:N if link rot and loss of prominence over time are legitimate deletion reasons. I don't think they are. Keith D. Tyler 09:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources should still be able to be located, archived or otherwise. If link rot was in fact a question, then the reliability of said source would also come into question. Megtetg34 (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Link rot doesn't really matter here, since there's other pathways to notability (the short answer is no, link rot shouldn't make someone non-notable: the question is whether he was ever notable in the first place.) The article, in its current state, is terrible, and likely fails WP:GNG on its face. However, I am finding book reviews for his book online - I'm not entirely sure if they're reliable sources or not - but there is a good argument he passes WP:NAUTHOR, but I will leave this for someone else to make (I honestly don't care, I was interested in the link rot discussion and got sucked in.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - poorly sourced and I can't find other sources with a simple Google search. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pure nostalgia might lead me to dig further. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My general feeling is that web content predating the waxing of SEO technnology is just less epistemically dangerous and more historically interesting than today's content, and so can be held to a more lenient verififability/sourcing standard. I doubt my opinion is all that widely held, but I welcome other perspectives. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keith D. Tyler 06:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While there is sometimes a question mark over the reliability of articles in student newspapers, the article in The Heights mentioned in the article and which we finally have the full text of, above, thanks again to Keith, seems to be decent, qualifying as a mixed primary and secondary source, and useful for sourcing the article. I think this also reaches BASIC standard. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not sure I'm convinced enough that this should be kept using WP:BASIC. Other thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:15, 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 delete. Ultimately, consensus is that this article is not suitable. However, several commenters seem to believe that improvement might be a possibility. If anyone is interested in trying, let me know and I will put the article into draft space for you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater diving in popular culture edit

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

Excessive pop culture trivia, lots of original research. While the article goes into detail in how creative liberties about diving in fiction creates misconceptions about it in real life, it's all uncited, and the article primary consists of a massive list of anything and everything diving has appeared in. This seems non-encyclopedic. Waxworker (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure original research. There are no sources about the general topic, with all references being from or about specific works. Dubious notability. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a list, so to be expected that it is a collection of information about specific works. Could you be more specific about your claim of pure original research · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because it is the unwanted "popular culture" stuff from three articles (Special:Diff/873525191, Special:Diff/872965051, Special:Diff/873530301) plus some categories (Special:Diff/873107920) merged into one. Uncle G (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not so much unwanted per se, but not relevant to the reasonable scope of those articles. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 19:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has Anthony Appleyard been notified? Much of the content is material he originally provided. Perhaps he would be prepared to put in the effort to find proper references, as he was always in favour of keeping the material in Wikipedia. Most of it is probably citeable but outside of my field of interest, and not relevant to the main articles on diving. I can see encyclopedic value in the topic in spite of the current content and lack of citation, so I guess I am voting a qualified Keep, but against a merge into any technical article on diving. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello @Pbsouthwood: Would you perhaps like to explain why you are against a merge to underwater diving or the like? It would be somewhat relevant for the discussion currently going on below. Thanks either way! Daranios (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Daranios: Underwater diving is a large article, densely packed with summary level content on the rather large and broad topic of underwater diving. It is a featured article, so should not have content added which is not appropriate for inclusion in a featured article, particularly not a large set of lists of details and links. Once an article on diving in popular culture is sufficiently developed, and a well structured and referenced summary can be written, that summary should be added to Underwater diving, as a section on popular culture, to expand the scope of the top level article.
      The current article on underwater diving in popular culture has potential to become something better in spite of its more obvious shortcomings. Deleting it would seem contrary to the aims of the encyclopedia.
      The scope of Underwater diving in popular culture is too broad for inclusion in any of the other major articles on aspects of underwater diving, and splitting out little bits of the content and merging them into the articles where each item has some relevance is also problematic, as many of the little bits would fit equally well or badly in more than one article, which would scatter them around and make them less accessible, less useful, and more work to maintain. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If an article on Wikipedia is bad, the solution is to improve, not delete. The problem is often finding someone who is willing to put in the work needed to improve, when deletion is the easy option.
    Specific claims can be challenged and if no support is forthcoming, deleted. My estimate is that a large amount is probably citeable with some effort, as quite a lot is linked to articles which may have suitable sources. Identify those statements which are considered original research, so that they can be investigated.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pbsouthwood: The massive deletion to page Frogman at diff [8] should be restored and discussed. Popular culture is important; "popular" stuff affects many people, and thereby is noteworthy, ref. the meaning of the word "popular". Often one man's trivia or cruft is another man's important relevant matter. In matter about a book or film, the book or film is accessible to the public and is the reference. The list of links in this article could be useful or interesting to many people. Wikipedia is a public information service. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    First the material should be provided with proper in-line sourcing, correctly formatted, then we can discuss whether it should be restored, and why. Popular culture may be important, but if so it is important as popular culture. Evidence that that content is encyclopedic would also support retention of this article. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A citation on Wikipedia implies that the person making the citation has actually viewed the source, and is personally taking responsibility for the validity of the citation. A book or film may be technically accessible to the public, while remaining, in practice, inaccessible to some members of the public. This does not make the source inadmissible in general, but it does put the onus for proper citation on the person who wants the content to remain on Wikipedia, and has presumably seen the content in the source, as the buck cannot be passed to people who do not personally have the required access to correctly cite the source, whether or not they may have the interest or time. Proper citation means providing sufficient information that another person can unambiguously positively identify the publication cited, and where relevant, the part of the publication that is contains the cited information. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    More to the point, Anthony Appleyard: this discussion is about the proposed deletion of the article Underwater diving in popular culture, which is also partly due to lack of proper referencing of those same statements. I pinged you as a courtesy in case you want to make a case in defence of the article, or possibly even to provide proper references for the content you originally posted, which might help persuade other editors that it should be kept. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 19:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pbsouthwood: Since Underwater diving in popular culture is a list of links to books and movies, the reference to each line is the text of the book or or the action of the movie which that line links to and describes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Anthony Appleyard, It is not a list of links to books and movies, it is a list of links to Wikipedia articles about books and movies, and other statements about the content of books and movies.
    In the case of links to Wikipedia articles, the blue internal link proves that the article exists on Wikipedia, which is sufficient. The annotation transcludes the short description of the linked article, which is content of the linked article, and therefore must be directly or indirectly cited in the linked article, following the rules for the lead paragraphs.
    In the case of the statements about frogmen, they are statements about the content of books and movies, they are not internal links to Wikipedia articles, so those statements must be cited in each article in which the statements are made. They are not transcluded from other articles, the statements are made directly where they are displayed, and therefore must be explicitly and unambiguously cited to the external source there too, in one of the accepted formats for citation on Wikipedia, which does not include bare inline external links. This is standard practice on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not cite Wikipedia. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 03:50, 26 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? 12:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yet another IPC drive-by which hasn't observed WP:BEFORE. Sources are easy to find such as Rapture of the Deep and so policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 19:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Andrew. There is also a short treatment in Diving Pioneers p. 42, there's more about underwater diving in popular culture in the context of maritime archaelogy here and here, and there's many more secondary sources dealing with specific appearances of underwater diving in popular culture. Daranios (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unmanageable, indiscriminate list without any particular inclusion criteria. This is not something that can be solved through editing because it is inherently flawed. At best, this deserves to be a section in the main article with prose describing the usage of the topic in popular culture, if the sources exist. TTN (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TTN: Sources do exist, as shown just above. That such a topic is neither unmanagable nor inherently flawed is shown by e.g. Tunnels in popular culture (I would say "tunnels" is a topic quite comparable in its broadness to "underwater diving"). How it can be managed is decribed in Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. (That does not say anything about the question if a separate article or a section is better, I think we agree on that the current version could use improvement.) Daranios (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot seem to access some of the sources above, but I see nothing that justifies an article at this time. Contrary to popular belief, satisfying the bare minimum in what one would consider reliable sources and calling it a day doesn't mean an article is actually justified. It has to actually make sense as an article. I don't see anything that is going to shift this to a discussion on the topic's evolution in pop culture utilizing only pertinent examples. "Tunnels in popular culture" is an absolute hodgepodge mess that looks like it should be merged into a couple different articles, so I'm not sure what your goal was in showing that as an example of a successful popular culture article. TTN (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TTN: "Tunnels in popular culture", because it is the example called out by Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Can you access the main source above, Rapture of the Deep? It has pages 97-105 dedicated first to the appearance of diving in film, television and advertisement in the 1950s and 1960s, and then analyzes the roots and expression of diving in culture and society. (Impact in culture and society is part of "in popular culture", right? That is, as far as I can see, not covered in Underwater diving.) Volumewise, that alone could make for a nice short article. Of course more than one source is needed, but they have been shown to exist, and the scope of the topic is much broader than what is in Rapture of the Deep, so plenty more to add. And I am sure that secondary sources can be found for many of the entries that are currently listed. Just have a look at Scuba Diving Tourism p. 15, a hit for the first entry I have tried to look, Sea Hunt. Actually, look at that, that book has a one-page-chapter on scuba diving in popular culture. Tada, WP:GNG's minimum requirement is fulfilled with those two alone. And we have already found more, so we can satisfy more than the bare minimum, as you have requested. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That essay is severely outdated and just assumes the TV Tropes style of content is fine, so I don't really think it is a good resource at all in how to handle these articles. The manual of style linked in the essay advocates for actual meaningfully crafted prose based on discussion of the topic in popular culture. With the exception of the first section of the tunnels article, the article is clearly just trivia in prose form, so it fails to actually meet any criteria of what could be considered a meaningful pop culture article. For this article in particular, what has been advanced in terms of sources does not at this time justify a separate article. This topic is a content fork, so simply saying "the most basic needs of GNG have been satisfied" is not good enough for an article in this case. You've at best brought forth the building blocks for a section in the main article. There is currently nothing that justifies the current content, there is nothing to salvage from the current content, and there is no need to stub this down when it can simply be added to the main article. TTN (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TTN: If you think the essay is outdated, why not work on updating it? As it is, it is current piece of Wikipedia lore that directly contradicts the opinion that the topic is unmanageable and inherently flawed. Anyway, it is an essay, so let's look back to Wikipedia policy. If you say ""the most basic needs of GNG have been satisfied" is not good enough for an article in this case", I assume that's your opinion, but that it is not grounded in policy. Or where would be the policy to the contrary? I think WP:GNG is the relevant policy here, so if its needs are met, the article can stay. And again, Rapture of the Deep alone can fulfill the volume requirement of WP:WHYN, while Scuba Diving Tourism fulfills the "not one single viewpoint" requirement. Now you say meeting these basic requirements is not good enough. But in this argumentation you have ignored that more secondary sources, which therefore go beyond "the most basic needs of GNG", have already been presented.
Again, I agree that what we currently have is lacking and needs sources. But when you say there is "nothing that justifies the current content", did you do a search on individual entries of the list, to see if there are secondary sources for them? If there were (as has just been shown for Sea Hunt), then that content would be justified, even though the sources are not yet there in the article. Daranios (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The essay reflects when there were so many hundreds (possibly even thousands) of these articles and ten times as many bloated sections. It appears we're now down to somewhere around 100 or less, and the prevalence of major pop culture sections has thankfully mostly died down. It no longer has relevance in most of its suggestions. This article is a content fork. It is something that should only be split out when properly sourced content overwhelms the parent article. You can use the same justification of just barely meeting GNG to go split out literally any section of any well sourced article if you really want, but that would be silly in practice if the content fits in the article already. Zero content in the article as of the time of the nomination should stick around, so that leaves a minor stub to build from the sources presented in this AfD (or at least any that talk about the actual topic). As the sourcing presented does not show massive potential for improvement, it's not something that can sustain an article at this time. Easiest thing is just to delete this and start fresh in the main article. TTN (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TTN: Hmm, I disagree on so many levels that I don't have time to discuss them all now. I'd like to start with: Would you be willing to create such a section in the main article in case this one were deleted? If not, let's assume for a moment, noone else would be either. Then someone interested in the topic would have lost whatever the current article offers, despite its flaws, and gained nothing. I don't feel that would improve Wikipedia. Starting from the other side, you say its easiest to first delete, then create a new section. As the existence of this article is no hindrance whatsoever in creating such a section, I cannot follow you there. On the contrary I would say its existence is a slight help (if I'd do it, to get inspiration for what to do there, from your point of view, at least as a bad example). If a great section in a parent article were created, putting this article to shame, then this could be redirected after clarification in a merge discussion. That way round, there would be no loss for Wikipedia at any time, in case a section would look better than a whole article, as you suggest. That's also what the policy says: WP:ATD "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases.", and WP:NEXIST. Daranios (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this discussion exists and can be linked on the talk page of the main article, I don't really think it matters when it is created. As long as the sources here are recorded somewhere for future perusal and possible usage, the job is done. I'm looking at this from the perspective of it being an improperly created page that never should have been allowed to exist in the first place. WP:NODEADLINE is a two way road in terms of people rushing to create articles before they're ready and people looking to remove viable articles just because they're not up to snuff. If we were talking about a topic that had content worth salvaging, the argument that we should give it time to incubate would be valid, but this article as of the time of the nomination offers zero utility. It is just the same TV Tropes trvia bunk we've seen on these lists for the last 15-ish years. I'm honestly surprised it was actually created only a few years ago. Without confidence that this page has the potential for massive improvement, I think its existence is a negative blight on Wikipedia that encourages more pages like it to be created, so its deletion is a benefit. TTN (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TTN Can you support your personal opinions as expressed above with actual Wikipedia policy or guidance, as opposed to essays which are other peoples personal opinions on what Wikipedia should be? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would be particularly interested to know of anything deprecating articles on the topic of specific categories of popular culture. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is Underwater diving in popular culture an improperly created page that never should have been allowed to exist in the first place? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the article content, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#"In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material, despite linking to the essay in the above discussion, pretty much entirely contradicts the essay. The content in the article as of the time of the nomination fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is a random smattering of loosely connected trivia points, and not a "section with well-written paragraphs that give a logically presented overview (often chronological and/or by medium) of how the subject has been documented, featured, and portrayed in different media and genres" as called for by the guideline. There is nothing in the article worth salvaging. The argument of the how and when to split an article is mostly subjective, but Wikipedia:Content forking suggests it is acceptable when there is an issue of undue weight. This topic does not have that issue. We have a small selection of possible sources from which to build a section, and I am not a fan of stubbing articles down to just see them back here in two years when they're either still a stub or have bloated back out again. This is a topic that, if it is going to be explored on Wikipedia, belongs in the parent article until such a time where it has undue weight. I don't know if you made the article as a junk containment zone for your FA push or simply believe it to have potential, but the article was definitely never suitable. TTN (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Underwater diving in popular culture is primarily a list. It is also an article where a more general treatment of the topic can be developed. The relevance of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#"In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material is tenuous at best.
You specify The content in the article as of the time of the nomination fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, we should be considering the content of the article as it currently stands - improvements during a deletion discussion are not only permitted, but recommended.
The transfer of content from Underwater diving was because it had potential elsewhere that it did not have there. The same point stands for all the other articles in which parts of it were found.
Your claim that the article was definitely never suitable remains unsupported by evidence or logical demonstration, and therefore expresses your personal opinion. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] I would also parenthetically mention that the content of the current article does not have a unique parent article, as implied above, as it was collected from several different articles on the general topic, but Underwater diving#In popular culture would be the appropriate place for a summary section once one has been developed. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You made it without any claim of notability, completely contrary to how guidelines on how the topic says the content should be managed. That is absolutely the criteria for a poorly formed article that never should have existed. Given what is very respectable work from you on other areas of the general topic, I'm not sure why you're so adamant on defending this mess. Out of current remaining popular culture articles, Titanic in popular culture (still a little messy in some area but much closer to proper form) seems the closest example to what would be a properly formed version of one of these articles. There is a very good reason 90% of these things have been culled from Wikipedia over the years. TTN (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read this – You made it without any claim of notability, completely contrary to how guidelines on how the topic says the content should be managed. That is absolutely the criteria for a poorly formed article that never should have existed. – and am unable to parse what you are trying to communicate. Perhaps you would be kind enough to clarify.
I, as you put it, defend this mess because I find the arguments for its deletion poorly expressed and uncompelling, and although it is a topic I am not particularly interested in, have not been convinced that deletion is an appropriate solution. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The deletion opinions of LaundryPizza03 and Abhishek0831996 as well as the nomination by Waxworker are based partially or exclusively on WP:OR. I hope I could show by adding secondary sources to the example of Sea Hunt, that this article cannot be purely original research. So far there has been no comment on the question by Peter Southwood what the original research claim actually refers to, making it unclear if these are opinions solely based on the current lack of citations (which is not really relevant according to WP:ARTN), or if there was any WP:BEFORE search done to substantiate this. (There were also 16 deletion nominations done by the nominator within 11 minutes, making a proper WP:BEFORE search highly doubtful.) I hope this is taken into account for the decision about this article. Daranios (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the deletion rationale for each article and looked into sources well before publishing all of the discussions in one go, as it was more efficient. WP:BEFORE has been met, and a few sources talking about the subject are not a justification for a massive list of anything and everything underwater diving has ever appeared in. Per TTN, it's unmanagable and the concept of the article as a whole is flawed, not only its contents. Waxworker (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Waxworker: Thanks for replying. Yet that sounds a lot like an opinion based on the current state of the article. In more search secondary sources have been found, which could be used to write a reasonably-sized section about the topic. For the example of Sea Hunt, a section supported by secondary sources exists now. The same principle could be applied to all entries: If there are secondary sources, these topics can stay, if not, they can be thrown out. In this way it would, as also Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content describes, be both manageable and limited. Daranios (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The lead paragraph of Underwater diving in popular culture is a scope description. This directly refutes the claim Unmanageable, indiscriminate list without any particular inclusion criteria, by providing an explicit set of inclusion criteria appropriate to the topic, and though fairly broad in scope, is not indiscriminate. No evidence has been provided that it would be unmanageable, nor reasons why this may be the case. The statement appears more rhetorical than substantive.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists (or lists of lists) with ill-defined inclusion criteria that are absolutely WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Simply saying "this is a listing of [X] that feature [Y]" means you can include anything under the sun that has featured [Y] even tangentially. There is no end point. Whether notability for the overarching topic of "Underwater diving in popular culture" as a whole can be established from the sources provided in the AfD, the content of the article is still unsuitable. TTN (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you feel that the inclusion criteria should be tightened up, you are free to do so. This is a cooperative project. If something appears broken the appropriate response is to fix it. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:IINFO. Lists of overly broad scope such as those of the form "[Subject] in [any media]" are indiscriminate, unmaintainable and not useful. Sandstein 07:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandstein, What about lists of "Wikipedia articles about [subject] in [specified media]"? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pbsouthwood, they are indiscriminate. There are so many topics and so many works of popular culture, this would just generate a zillion-page worse version of TV Tropes. Sandstein 20:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sandstein, Indiscriminate overstates the objection. There are three independent discriminators in Wikipedia articles about [subject] in [specified media]. The quoted format represents an outline list, or a closed set of index lists, or even a category , all of which are accepted as useful in principle, and complementary to each other. None of these conditions are unbounded in the real world, and there is no limitation preventing further discrimination to split such an article if it becomes actually unmanageable at some time. Wikipedia itself continues to grow, with no hard limit on size and number of articles, either on a topic or in general. Navigation within the encyclopedia as a whole, and within topics, is facilitated by such lists, which makes them useful to both readers and editors. Maintaining the encyclopedia is a lot of work, but it is one of the things Wikipedians do, and as time passes, tools are developed to reduce the workload. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Sandstein. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft. The assertion by those !voting keep is that sources identified can yield a salvageable article. Let's put it in draft to test that theory. BD2412 T 19:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or draftify - while the article as currently written is in danger of becoming an indiscriminate list with unclear criteria, I think that the discussion has shown there are sufficient sources to justify a prose-based, non-list article on this topic. The article should be kept and improved, or sent to draft space for improvement. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - personally, I don't think this will ever be in state which is not indiscriminate enough to pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Onel5969 TT me 02:55, 28 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. Not relisting a third time given low participation rate. Daniel (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Desta Global edit

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

Lacks independent coverage. Loaded with Press Releases. Fails WP:NCORP. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussions: 2018-05 Desta Talk redirect
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are thirty-five sources; surely a lot of them look like crap, but I haven't seen anyone put forth the effort to go through them and assess whether they constitute significant coverage. I'm not seeing why they should be dismissed out of hand as "press releases". jp×g 07:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:05, 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. This discussion has received quite ample input, but there is no consensus for a particular outcome here. North America1000 10:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Downer edit

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NPOL never elected to office. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed notablity at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics/Archive 10#Georgina Downer notable Newystats (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Devonian Wombat or Merge to Downer family. Enough notability for at least a mention on the Downer family page, should not be deleted as there are alternatives. Deus et lex (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep. WP:GNG is the only valid justification, although her political candidature contributes to the profile. There look to be about a dozen Wikipedia pages that would link to this page if it is kept. The article needs work, but there's a limit to how much people will do while it has AFD hanging over it. --Scott Davis Talk 11:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unelected candidates for political office do not get articles just for being candidates per se — and no, the fact that a handful of campaign coverage exists doesn't automatically hand candidates a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL either, because every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage. Rather, to make a non-winning candidate notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, she needs to pass one or both of two other tests: either (a) she has a strong claim to preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy, or (b) she can show credible evidence that her candidacy should be deemed a special case of significantly greater notability than everybody else's candidacies. But this does nothing to demonstrate that she would pass the second test, and just chairing a university institute isn't an automatic free pass over the first test in the absence of properly sourced evidence that she would pass WP:ACADEMIC — so no, nothing here is enough. No prejudice against recreation of a redirect to the family list, but she's already named in it and there's nothing stated here that needs to be added there, so there's not much merging necessary. Bearcat (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while ordinarily a regular political candidate would not be notable, her involvement in the Sports rorts affair (2020) means that she satisfied WP:BLP1E. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? Being notable for one event under WP:BLP1E tends to argue for not having an individual article on the person. Boneymau (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, she received coverage for being a political candidate and for the sports rorts affair, meaning she received coverage for two events. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Scott Davis and the Devonian Wombat. Furius (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There's not much here that couldn't be covered by a couple sentences under Alexander Downer#Personal life and a couple sentences at Sports rorts affair (2020). (Frankly I'm not sure the justification is there for a separate Downer family article). I think there's a question as to whether some of the coverage is actually about Downer per se, as opposed to the elections in which she stood. By-elections can attract significant coverage of the candidates, but that's not necessarily indicative of the candidates' notability. I don't think any one of her career, her candidacies, or her involvement in the scandal are enough to meet GNG in their own right, and I'm inclined to say that summed together they still don't at this stage. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ms Downer has attracted sufficient coverage over the years as a result of her political career and other activities Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Bearcat CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NPOL and WP:NOTINHERITED. WWGB (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep extensive, multiyear, in-depth coverage from all of Australia's major news sources. Easily passes the GNG. --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:34, 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 no consensus. I can't find any consensus. For what it's worth, the pertinent SNG is WP:TVSHOW. On a side note, I am concerned the "plot" section may be a copyvio, it certainly reads like it was lifted from TV Guide (I know that's not in Pakistan), but if someone knowledgable about Pakistani sources and languages could check.... please. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pehchaan (2014 TV series) edit

Pehchaan (2014 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable TV series, apparently ran for one short season; the sources provide two passing mentions and a short profile, not even close to WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article was newly created today (23 April 2021) by User:ZindagiHaseenHai and already had 3 newspaper references. It was missing the related categories which I added 4 categories today. I honestly wonder if people are allowed enough time to fix and expand their articles before it ends up on AfD? One of the above newspapers reviewed it under the title 'Best of Pakistani television' in 2014? Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment When I nommed this, the article had been published for 12+ hours. How many days should I have waited? How long, exactly, does it take to add sufficient references to establish notability? And more to the point, what is the reason why those references cannot be added before publishing, precisely so that this doesn't happen? "I honestly wonder if" some people creating articles have ever looked at any of the guidelines... --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply DoubleGrazing, I am sometimes frustrated myself with wasted time on Wikipedia. I strongly feel that policy needs to be changed on the 'accepting side' of newly-created articles for Wikipedia, if that's what you meant by your 'comment' above. Editors, new and old alike, should be asked to work on their new articles in their own Sandboxes until they are in 'fairly good shape' and reliably sourced, only then they should be 'accepted' on main space Wikipedia to save everyone's time. Let's go back to the above subject article. Two of us editors got involved to help out in improving the article after it was nominated for AfD. So this article needs to be considered fairly as it stands now after some improvement.
I agree, though, that the new editors should be required to get familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and should show it in their actual behavior, when creating new articles before their articles are accepted. Hopefully, my User page has been reflecting this thought for some time now. Let's stop accepting very poorly written and totally unreferenced new articles on Wikipedia?..Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:39.34.188.130 later added another major Pakistani newspaper review of Pehchaan (2014 TV series) plus a review by an entertainment website. In my view, now there are enough independent third party newspaper reviews of this TV series to pass WP:GNG. Regards Ngrewal1 (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- this is an article about a series with plenty of references now. And in response to the nominator's discussion about how long should they wait? I don't think the amount of time to wait is relevant, however, clearly the WP:BEFORE was insufficient given the sources that have since been added. matt91486 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Article was created by a now-blocked sock of Bttowadch (and the IP who edited is also a sock of the same editor). Please review carefully, they take a VERY fast and loose approach to sources and NPOV articles. Ravensfire (talk) 03:45, 26 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? 07:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any other thoughts? We're here to see if this merits inclusion - not for clean up. That belongs on the article talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:51, 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. Missvain (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lai Chi Kok Road edit

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

Road that does not meet WP:GNG. The article is basically WP:SYNTH as it talks about other things nearby that are notable. I thought Route 5 (Hong Kong) would be a redirect target, but was informed that this road is no longer part of Route 5. Rusf10 (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This is a primary distributor road with historical significance as one of the main roads connecting Kowloon to the new town at Sham Shui Po (in the 1920s), and later as a principal route to Tsuen Wan (1970s) prior to the construction of the West Kowloon Corridor and West Kowloon Highway. Although many Hong Kong streets and roads do not have very good articles at present, most of them are covered in a lot of local sources. The articles just need some work. I have expanded Lai Chi Kok Road and added reliable sources accordingly. Regards, Citobun (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in local sources does not mean notability. I sure we can find WP:ROUTINE coverage of construction, road paving projects, etc for just about any road. The sources you have provided are all routine.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusf10: The references are not routine coverage. They describe the progressive extension of the road (i.e. its creation). Which of the sources describe "construction, road paving projects, etc"? Please don't mischaracterise my contributions to the article. Citobun (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really? With titles such as "ARMY GIVES UP PART OF SHAMSHUIPO LAND: Opening Up Of Laichikok Road To Give Access To Cheungshawan"., "New Road To Ease Congestion", "New road section to open"., all of which come from the local newspaper. Sounds very routine to me.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These describe the extension and expansion of the road. Not routine events like road paving. Certainly I came across WP:ROUTINE coverage but I didn't use any such sources. Citobun (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The extension of the road is routine. Local newspapers always cover these things.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, by definition of the word "routine" and the guideline you linked to, the extension of a major trunk road (as it was at the time) is certainly not routine. This is a significant road in Hong Kong and this deletion nomination is basically frivolous. And now you are mischaracterising the nature of references to SCMP, a reliable source. Rusf10, which of the sources covers a routine "road paving" project? That's what you wrote. Now you are moving the goalpost. Citobun (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, I didn't say that the newspaper wasn't a reliable source, what I said was it is a local source which was routine coverage of local news stories. Second, there is no moving of the goal post because what I did say is that road construction (not just repaving) is routine. Find coverage of the road construction in multiple national or international publications and I will reconsider.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rusf10, I completely do not care if you reconsider because you seem intent on mischaracterising sources. The article now has references to multiple reliable sources including the Town Planning Board, Urban Council, and the South China Morning Post demonstrating the route's notability as a historic trunk route and present-day primary distributor road. Citobun (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not mischaracterizing sources, you don't understand our notability guidelines. You seem to think that because there's a source, it must be notable. To start with WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Do you actually think the Town Planning Board and the Urban Council add to notability? How can the town planning board be an WP:INDEPENDENT source when the town owns the road?--Rusf10 (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the references establishes notability. The fact that the road is classified as a primary distributor road, as evidenced by the TPB reference, is a claim of notability. TPB and UrbCo are reliable sources. I don't know what "town" you are referring to. Nor do I know what you think a "national publication" is in the context of colonial Hong Kong. Citobun (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Citobun and Cunard. Deryck C. 16:09, 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 merge to Rossair Executive Air Charter. Daniel (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rossair Europe edit

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP notability guidelines. Rusf10 (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:40, 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 merge to Adventure Time. Merge anything of worth to Adventure Time and then redirect. Missvain (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Music of Ooo edit

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

Was 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 agued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid WP:POPULARPAGE argument. Another agued "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 album, only thing I could find on Google was this blog post. 90% of the cites in this article aren't about the album, but about seasons and episodes of the show that talk about songs and aren't even about the compilation. That does not satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Other cites about the album are just news announcements, or WP:PRIMARY sources, which are very reliable but don't establish long-lasting notability. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, your diatribe in the opening paragraph here is unhelpful; kindly take the axe-grinding elsewhere. Second, what is imperative about deleting this page when it could simply be redirected? Third, the body of the article discusses the songs contained on the album. it's standard practice to have a section on articles about albums discussing the writing/production of particular songs; that's what is happening here.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, what did I say that was "axe-grinding"? All I did was give background to the topic's presence in Afd for other potential commenters to know about what arguments have already been made. I critiqued only the content; I never went after the editors.
      • "The commenters used lousy reasoning", "commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics", etc. You're throwing indirect insults around, and I don't think that's very productive. These sort of discussion already have a reputation for being unnecessarily divisive, so I don't see reason to throw gas on the flame, so to speak.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will say I could've presented those comments better, and it probably didn't help I wasn't in a good mood that day. Also, I have been in other Afds that get pretty darn heated, so I understand the concern. But I don't see what's divisive about bringing up when others' argumentations are flawed or are to be avoided in a deletion discussion. Plus, I do regret saying the commenters were ignorant about the sources available; Vaticidalprophet, for example, has done a great job researching the sources in these AFDs, BTW ;). 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second, "The body of the article discusses the songs contained on the album. it's standard practice to have a section on articles about albums discussing the writing/production of particular songs". That is not what I was criticizing. I'm arguing about the topic's notability, not what's in the article. I stated most of the "cites", aka the sources used for this article, weren't discussing the album at all, so it didn't establish notability for the topic of the album. If you want to have an article about the writing and production of these songs, a "Music of" article should be created to do that, something like Music of Adventure Time. That way, other music not featured in this album can be discussed as well, plus other releases of music from this show could be covered there as a discography list. Having an article presented mainly as about a release with only blog post and PR announcement sources isn't the way to go. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • See, this is where I think this whole process is silly. I'm an active editor. Since I created this, why not reach out to me and discuss a better approach to handling it? Deleting the content just evaporates it into thin air, and poof there goes a lot of my hard work; you can probably see why I'd want to save it. A redirect, etc. would be far, far more productive, as it preserves the content in some form.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wanna know the harsh truth? It's really because the only way to get other users' attention to a discussion is through Afd. Nominating it a for merge (even if you notify the Wikiproject talk pages) will get it far less attention. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:24, 27 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) 15:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The 'blog' in question is clearly a news site with editorial control. Not a spectacular one, but I'd option 2 it at RSN. Vaticidalprophet 15:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partially Merge album-related info to Adventure Time#Related media, where perhaps a new sub-section could be created. While the nominator's introductory rationale for this AfD is a not very useful copy/paste from elsewhere, he/she actually made a better point in the later comment about how much of this album article and its sources are about other things. The article is bloated with fancruft about the show itself, while the album received little coverage as a stand-alone entity in its own right. However, there is some useful information on how the show's producers created and compiled songs throughout the show's lengthy history, and that can be discussed at the show's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see how a production section on the individual songs qualifies as "fancruft." This is pretty standard for a lot of articles about albums.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so we can find common ground, Gen. Quon, I actually disagree with DOOMSDAYER520 that info about the writing of the songs would be fancruft, especially when they're reliably sourced. I just think it's better in an article generally about the show's music and not one album. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Another quick point; merging to the main AT page doesn't seem like a good idea, as it would disproportionately focus on the music, rather than the show.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then make an "Music of Adventure Time" article as we do of the music of other topics, such as Music of Sonic the Hedgehog and Music of Final Fantasy. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still don't understand this: "the cites ... talk about songs and aren't even about the compilation." I mean, yeah, a song isn't an album, but the songs are on the album, so isn't that pertinent?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a notability issue, not a "what's in the article" issue. In most cases, there must be independent sources primarily about the topic itself to indicate the topic itself is notable. There's nothing wrong with using cites not mainly about a topic to fill in the pieces of the puzzle, but if that's the only thing to have, than it's just a essay of details about other topics. The fact that the songs would happen to later end up on a compilation does not give inherited notability to that compilation. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going this one more go around - any other ideas? Mergers? Etc? I'll end up going "no consenus" if I was to close this today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Adventure Time. First, a note on process: Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. I understand that you may feel the aforementioned bundled nom deserved to be treated en masse, but if others have any reason to disagree, then it isn't a good case for bundling. Precedent is made one AfD at a time, which can then be referenced in later discussions. That's simply a matter of procedure. But to the point here, this article topic lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) and no one has raised additional sources. The standard course of action is to first attempt an alternative to deletion such as bold redirection. If/when that's contested, there are other ways to handle, but outright deletion of an album connected to a media property will rarely make sense because the title will almost always remain a viable search term worthy of redirection. So minimally merge any worthwhile sourcing in this case and redirect the title when ready. I would think that the parent featured article should have at least some mention of this release. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 02:14, 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 keep per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) versacespaceleave a message! 01:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lady of Heaven edit

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

The Lady of Heaven does not satisfy film notability or general notability. This is an unreleased film. According to the guidelines on future films, unreleased films are only notable if production has itself been notable to satisfy general notability. Nothing in this article even starts to discuss significant coverage of production by reliable sources, likely because there has not been significant coverage of production by reliable sources. An article should speak for itself, and this draft does not.

This article is promotional, and reads like an advertisement for the film, which is unreleased, and a release date is not given. This article is incomplete, in that portions of the article are empty sections.

This article has already been moved to draft space once, and has been declined by Articles for Creation reviewers. Its principal author has been blocked for promotion. Another editor has moved the article back to article space without passing review. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - heavily promotional article. I would have said draftify, but WP:TNT is apropos in this instance. Onel5969 TT me 15:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Not delete, Many Muslims do not consider it correct to show the face of the Prophet Muhammad. But the film did it with all the opposition. This film is very important for Muslims because they want to see how it did it. In addition, the film shows one of the most controversial and important differences between Shiites and Sunnis. Other films have not dared to do so and have not even mentioned it. It is clear that this film is very important and should not be deleted.Just see the film has not been released yet, have how much video in Persian and Arabic language in cyberspace and see how the unreleased film quickly has Persian (Iran, the first Shiite country) and Arabic (Saudi Arabia, the first Sunni country) article in wikipedia. It is very important among Muslims and it is a universal film.
  • Comment: It looks like this and this are the same source, a press release sent to news outlets. For newbies, press releases are seen as primary sources because they were written by someone(s) - often press teams - that were hired by the people working on the film. I'll take a look at the other sources to see if they're the same. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, here's the rundown of sourcing:
  1. Deadline. This is OK to establish notability. It won't be enough on its own, however.
  2. Cinando. Routine database listing, cannot establish notability.
  3. Waring and McKenna. Another routine database listing, can't establish notability.
  4. 1TV. Establishes filming has begun, OK for NFF purposes.
  5. Report News Agency. Press release.
  6. InfoRustavi. This is the same article as above but in Georgian, so it's a press release.
  7. AlHabib. This is the website of Yasser Al-Habib. This is a bit iffy as far as sourcing goes, it's possibly usable but not the strongest possible source since it's posted on his own website, making it a SPS.
  8. Film Daily. Another press release - it's identical to what is written here in another website. Can't establish notability.
  9. The Vore. Routine database listing
  10. Digital Journal. Press release.
  11. Swagger. Not usable. Per their contact page they publish sponsored posts. This also seems like a press release. You can find some of the same text in places like this, making it very, very likely that this is either a sponsored post, based very heavily on a press release, or both.
  12. Latestly. Press release
  13. Zee5. Press release.
  14. Deadline. Usable.
  15. Hannibal Pictures. Primary source.
  16. Hawzah News. Not sure about the source, but would likely be usable at the very least for the info about the reaction to the movie.
What I'm running into here is that there aren't a lot of sources about the film that aren't out and out press releases or otherwise unusable. As it stands, the entire article will need to be re-written because it's extremely non-neutral. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak DeleteWeak keep agree with Onel5969. Too soon probably for the film, but now with this type of editing too late to save. TNT. Kolma8 (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to weak keep per ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) effort to overhaul the article. So, I guess HEY. If the result is to keep please consider semi-protect per ROP-FTG79. ReaderofthePack --> Thanks. Kolma8 (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Do whatever you see fit! Write it again! no problem. You are right, but do not delete the article, which is very important.
  • not delete How come "don't berate 2 " or "a quiet place 2" has articles, but this movie must have not? What is more important in "dont breath 2" than this article? Just said the release date? Well, the release date of this movie has not been said ​yet! And is waiting to be released.cause of Corona. This is not the reason
  • keep there is a lot of source about this film and This film banned in PakistanReza Amper (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To give this a bit of a fair shake I'm going to try to create a version that lacks all of the promotional puffery and spam links. Right now the article is so promotionally written that, quite frankly, this could be speedy deleted as sheer unambiguous promotional material. I'd also like to add that arguing that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not help argue for this article to be retained, as the existence of other articles doesn't mean that this film passes NFF at this point in time. Right now there might be enough for a weak keep, but I'd have to pretty much remove all of the promotional content, which makes up 95% of what is currently there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Onel5969, Kolma8, and Robert McClenon: I did a major overhaul of the article. I think it's pretty borderline. What bothers me as far as proving NFF goes is that the largest bulk of the sourcing is primary, as it's based on press releases from the same general time period. Some of the sourcing in the initial version was also kind of misleading, as the sources were PR that were written about (in the article) as if it was an original news piece and not a PR reprint. If this does happen to be kept, I would argue for this to get a temporary semi-protection to help deter any addition of promotional puffery. I'm honestly on the fence. I'm going to see if I can find anything else, but I think that notability is very borderline. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added quite a bit about the criticism of the film by notable figures. It's not super solid, but it's enough that if this film were to never release, it would probably be enough to establish notability for a "never released" film as opposed to a "unreleased future" film. I think it passes NFF, but I would absolutely recommend semi-protection to prevent the puffery from blowing up again. I also have no problem with the article history getting removed as well, if someone thinks that would help prevent this. I do have a copy of the draft in my userspace just in case as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the time and effort. Kolma8 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem! I have to admit my first impulse was to just delete it given its state at time of nomination, as the cleanup really did require an entire re-write. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If folks can give the article a look again after User:ReaderofthePack's work, I'd appreciate it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:33, 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 redirect to Austin, Texas#Crime. There is a consensus below (between merge and delete contributions) that this article should not remain as a standalone article.

We are then left with the decision either to delete or merge, of which there were good arguments for both. However, ultimately, I find persuasive the argument that it cannot be merged to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021, as it appears to not meet the criteria for that list. Therefore, I am taking the next best option that was discussed, which was to link it (in this case, via a redirect) to Austin, Texas#Crime. However, from the discussion below it was unclear what (if anything) can be merged to that article, hence I have gone redirect, and will leave the decision of whether to merge anything to editorial process (the content of the 2021 Austin shooting article can be found behind the redirect). Daniel (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Austin shooting edit

2021 Austin shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper or newswire service. I'm getting awfully tired of Wikipedians moonlighting as journalists and/or racing to create anemic pages for current news events without any regard for our notability standards. It is not the job of Wikipedia to report events as they happen. KidAd • SPEAK 01:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - if this is to be merged, it should be to Austin, Texas#Crime. Jim Michael (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm changing my earlier vote to Keep. The shooting's ended, the suspect is in custody, and news sources agree on the events. Wgullyn (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Three dead, and a surprisingly lengthy manhunt that garnered news attention is in my book notable enough. Sergei zavorotko (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any policy to support that or just WP:ILIKEIT? KidAd • SPEAK 22:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind also bolding the "merge" part of your comment to make that part of your vote also clear to the admins? Love of Corey (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) Love of Corey (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge agree with other editors above, add this to the list of mass shootings, sad as that may be. Also agree that this the editor who cited that this particular criminal is not particularly noteworthy.[clarification needed] Star7924 (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I previously closed this AfD as merge to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021, but it appears that this shooting does not meet the criteria for inclusion on that page. Therefore, I am relisting it to determine whether we should keep, delete, or merge to a different article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgullyn: @HumanxAnthro: @Curbon7: @Kellis7: @Jax 0677: @Star7924: You may want to revisit your "merge" comments above. This article is not eligible for inclusion on List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 as it is not a "mass shooting". It would need to be merged elsewhere, if anywhere. Regards, WWGB (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no other choice in this situation. Love of Corey (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just one of many family shootings in the US, and not particularly notable. WWGB (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cop going on a killing spree with three dead is notable. Patapsco913 (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:24, 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 delete. czar 02:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depth of Pyaar edit

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a film, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. The attempted notability claim here is an extremely long and almost entirely unreferenced table of 49 award nominations at minor film festivals whose awards aren't instant notability freebies in the absence of any quality sourcing about the film -- and even the just two entries in that list which are footnoted are still not actually citing sources that verify the claimed awards, but rather are citing the self-published film festival catalogues of different festivals than the ones that purportedly presented the footnoted awards: an award from the Idyllwild International Festival of Cinema is cited to the website of something called "Asian Film Festival", and an award from the Cyprus International Film Festival is cited to the website of something called "Queens World Film Festival". But film awards only count as notability clinchers for a film if the award in question gets covered by the media, and not if you have to rely on film festivals' own self-published websites to source the claim because media coverage is nonexistent.
And the rest of the sourcing isn't any better, depending almost entirely on more film festival catalogues and other primary sources (IMDb, etc.) that aren't support for notability, with only a single film review in Film Threat constituting a reliable or notability-supporting source at all. (The only other "review" here is from a podcast that explicitly advertises itself as a "send us your film and we'll review it" platform for filmmakers to solicit coverage themselves, and thus isn't a reliable or notability-making source of film reviews, which have to come from established film critics in real media outlets to count as notability builders.)
Absolutely nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt a film from having to have a lot more than just one film review in a real reliable publication. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the thing is, there's this whole phantom circuit out there of fake "film festivals" that don't really screen films for the public at all, but instead exist only as "award mills": submit your film title and a processing fee, and we'll automatically give you an "award" so that you can stick the phrase "award-winning" in your marketing bumf. That's one of the reasons why we require independent evidence of the film festival awards getting reported as news in real media: because not all film festival "awards" that filmmakers claim to have won are necessarily always real awards from real film festivals in the first place. But also, the article doesn't actually say at all whether the film won all of these awards, or was just nominated for all of these awards — and even "nominated for film festival award" still carries a high risk of being advertorialized garbage, because even at real film festivals there aren't always true "nominees" for the awards, which may instead simply adjudicate all of the films that meet the relevant criteria for the award equally without releasing any special "shortlist" of nominees — so again, a reason why we need real sources, and not just assertions. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't really argue with anything stated in the nomination. I agree on all points. I came across one other article that seemed like a puff piece, and when trying to link, turned out it is blacklisted. -2pou (talk) 20:04, 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 speedy keep. Closed per the criteria for Speedy Keep criterion#2 The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and specifically both Criterion #2a obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations and #2b nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption. None of the "Delete" arguments below present recognizable or genuine criteria for deletion.(non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gugark pogrom edit

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

The article's credibility is called into question, as controversial claims are made that are backed only by Azerbaijani sources. As it stands, the page on Gugark pogrom is little more than Azerbaijani propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fractuallity (talk • contribs) 16:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Source [4] of the article features an image, supposedly of the Gugark pogroms. However, this photo is from the Armenian Genocide, not the Gugark pogrom as claimed. Source 4 is clearly not reliable. Source [16] does not mention that 21 Azerbaijani were killed in Gugark. It says that only 20 died, 3 them not in the Gugark Pogroms, and the other 17 in non-violent deaths. This claim in this source contradicts the Wikipedia article, which claims bodies were "burned so that they could not be identified". This is seems to be an intentional misinterpretation of Source 16. In fact, thorough reading of the source completely debunks Yunusov's claims and reveals active misinformation efforts from the Azeri side. Source [18] of the article is referencing an Azeri government-run site "Science Development Foundation". As the site itself states it's under the direct control of the Azeri president. Considering the state of freedom of speech in Azerbaijan, this is clearly not a reliable source. Source [19] usage implies that the ethnic infighting mentioned in the article were results of a one-sided pogrom, which is clearly not something the article is trying to convey. In fact, the only deaths mentioned in the article are of Armenians and Azeris in Azerbaijan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorris000 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Source [20] is no longer a dead link, however a deeper look at the source shows that it regularly publishes pro-Turkish and pro-Azeri opinion pieces, e.g. referring to Armenian Genocide recognition as "anti-Turksh provocation". The source is unreliable.Source [21] is used to support the claim that the pogrom remains largely unknown because of a cover up. The source mentions the cover up in its second to last paragraph, but it does not elaborate on how this cover up was orchestrated, or who it was orchestrated by. There are other claims in this source that are not backed by any evidence, such as that the KGB are responsible for the Khojaly massacre. The credibility of Source 21 is thus called into question. The article fails to provide a source for the listed death count. However, the article often references it. Death count is a crucial part to an article about a pogrom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fractuallity (talk • contribs) 16:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. AfD is not cleanup, so if there are individual claims in the article that are problematic, that is an issue to be addressed on the article talk page. Moreover, there are substantial sources discussing this subject. If the credibility of the event is questionable, provide the sources that question its credibility and discuss this in the article accordingly. The credibility of Bigfoot existing is questionable, but we have an article on the subject. BD2412 T 17:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.There are enough sources and are not backed only by Azerbaijani sources.--Qızılbaş (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will interject and state that non-Azerbaijani sources do not back up the claims, and actually make no mentions of the Gugark pogrom at all. This was devised in a way to mislead editors and viewers into thinking there are balanced sources to this so-called pogrom, when there is no information about Gugark pogrom from historians or any journal outside of Azerbaijan.
Your link does not support any of the statements you just provided. It was confusing to read your statement because the link provided only mentions this regarding Gugark: "everyone had fled from Armenia on buses", "after the Sumgayit events in the Gugark region, they began to dismiss the Azeri watchmen who worked at strategic facilities", a total of 624 Azerbaijanis were fired from March to November 1988 in the Gugark region". It is pretty disturbing that with the level of quality here on Wikipedia that you are trying to mislead us by making false statements.
  • Keep. There are enough reliable sources (including Russian and Armenian, not only Azerbaijani) describing the pogrom and its details, that also was done in this article. The nominatiion is clear WP:IDL. --Interfase (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite ingenuine to say that there are non-Azerbaijani sources, and therefore reliabally describing the pogrom, considering the non-Azerbaijani sources do not even describe the Gugark pogrom. Of the 21 sources provided, very few are non-Armenian sources. For example, the citation [1] is placed after the words Gugark Pogrom in the opening sentence, but I read the entire article and found only two mentions of Gugark, with no information about this pogrom, when it was, who was killed, how many were killed, or any information at all. Sources [2], [3], [4], and [5] are Azerbaijani. Source 5 however has no mention of Gugark pogrom and is used as a source to state that the Gugark District existed in Armenian SSR. Source 6 is a non-Azerbaijani source, but this source only confirms that a Gugark district existed in Armenian SSR. Source 7 is an Azerbaijani source that only states that Azerbaijanis lived here in the district. Source 8 is a non-Azerbaijani source that discusses that Gugark District was later replaced by the Lori Province. Source 9 is a non-Azerbaijani source, and again like previous non-Azerbaijani sources has no mention of a Gugark pogrom, and is a source discussing that Armenians who were victims of pogroms in Azerbaijan moved to Gugark District. Source 10 is a non-Azerbaijani source and only supports the statement that ethnic tensions were high and that both sides were scared of attacks. Source 11 and 12 are non-Azerbaijani sources that make no mention of a Gugark pogrom. Source 13 is a non-Azerbaijani source and it does mention Gugark in its list of pogroms, but has no additional information other than the mention of the word "Gugark". Source 14 is a non-Azerbaijani source and makes no mention of Gugark. Source 15 is a non-Azerbaijani source mentioning the death of 7 civilians in an unrelated city but no mention of Gugark or a pogrom. Source 16, 17, and 18 are Azerbaijani sources reiterating Gugark pogrom with no evidence provided. [19] is a non-Azerbaijani source that mentions the death of 3 Soviet citizens with no mention of Armenian or Azerbaijani. [20] is a non-Azerbaijani source but the provided article links to a youtube video of an Azerbaijani, and reiterates statements in the article from First Prosecutor General of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Ismat Gayibov. [21] is a non-Azerbaijani source reiterating statements by Abdulayeva about a pogrom in Gugark, again with no evidence provided. With my findings, I conclude that the statement that "non-Azerbaijani sources are provided as well" as a method of making one think that there are credible sources is ingenuine given the findings discussed above. I'm not sure we can entertain this discussion any further. This to me seems like a fabrication, and an additional investigation into a Gugark pogrom leads me to only Azerbaijani sources and no coverage by historians.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.122.119.122 (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there are controversial claims, it would be better to delete those claims, not the whole article. But after the proof of unreliability of those claims. Apollo (Helius Olympian) 11:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Much better to ammend the article. I have yet to see any valid sources questioning the credibility of the event. If you have problems with the details of the event that's an entirely different issue. From what I have seen so far, seems more like a WP:JDL issue than anything else. - Creffel (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD is being brigaded by the r/armenia subreddit (post here). Be ware of new accounts voting. Kantaroyu (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but I wouldn't call that brigading, in fact in r/Azerbaijan subreddit the OP is openly calling for a brigade, which seems to have arrived.. Link KhndzorUtogh (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can easily tell that 90% of the respondents in this AfD have no working knowledge of Wikipedia procedures (including, obviously the initiator of it) and the keeps are just here for brigading purposes. Nothing productive will come from it, and an article that is essentially a lie will remain on Wikipedia for now because some lazy people can't be bothered to put the work in to make an AfD case properly. 78.149.46.96 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's fairly obvious from the information discussed here that the Gugark pogrom page has a foundation built on propaganda and poor sources, not considering also that photos used from the Armenian genocide are being used in this page as a fabrication to somehow claim that those photos are from a pogrom initiated by Armenians. I've been following Azerbaijan quite closely as a political scientist and I'm sure many here know that Azerbaijan is ranked 168/180 in the World Press Freedom Index. I'm not sure I trust Azerbaijani sources given their long history of fabrication, propaganda, and misleading statements to undermine truth in history. I am making this statement as a political scientist from Poland; frankly I find these propaganda tactics disturbing and there is no room on Wikipedia for misinformation or fabricated information such as this. I don't believe that this website should be used as a platform to encourage and propagate what is contrary to the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.122.119.122 (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "there is no room on Wikipedia for misinformation or fabricated information such as this" - unfortunately, past examples show there are a limitless number of rooms on Wikipedia for this sort of material. 78.149.46.96 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:9900:B1DD:949C:D4BE:4F50:B74 (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC) — 2603:8000:9900:B1DD:949C:D4BE:4F50:B74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete The only potentially reliable third-party source specifically describing the event is Palyan, and even then it is not clear who Palyan is, and why an article should survive on the basis of a single, potentially-reliable source. This article has previously been criticised for a lack of reliable third-party sources but still further reliable sources have not been found. This article has already been given the chance to improve, and the situation is still the same. Maidyouneed (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say there's no third party sources but forget to mention New York Times and Radio Free Europe. Not even mentioning the journal on Caucasus. 185.81.81.21 (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Radio Free is quoting Abdulayeva, the chairwoman of the Azerbaijani National Committee of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights. Abdulayeva is not a third-party source. NYT does not have any specifics as to the Gugark pogrom, other than short-sightedness; The prior paragraphs is about Armenian and Azerbaijani refugees in general not specifically about Gugark. Maidyouneed (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two new sources have been added since. Each of these sources are quoting or referring to Azerbaijani sources. The Helvécio de Jesus Júnior/João Ricardo Guilherme Zimmer Xavier source is referring to a quote by Svante Cornell and Arif Yunusov. Svante Cornell having been criticised for having been funded by Azerbaijan lobbyists via the European Azerbaijan Society. Arif Yunusov being an Azerbaijani author himself. Coyle J.J. is referring to Balayev.Maidyouneed (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no Azeri = wrong in Wikipedia. Also, Yunusov is half Armenian. 185.81.82.150 (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per other contributions regarding the absence of reliable sources. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The New York Times is quoting the Armenian radio, Trud is quoting the Soviet KGB and Ekspress-Khronika is quoting Husik Harutyunyan, chief of the Armenian KGB at the time. How are these "Azerbaijani sources"? Parishan (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand why this article gets nominated just a few months after previous AFD decided to keep it. An article cannot be put on AFD so soon after the previous one. This article is sufficiently sourced, the interview of top KGB officers to Trud newspaper and de Waal's Black Garden are reliable sources, so no reason to delete this article. Grandmaster 08:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As others have already mentioned, there are far too little reliable sources in this article. In fact lots of information in this article is contradicted by the sources provided. For example when stating that Armenians massacred Azerbaijanis this source is used which says regarding casualties of the pogrom that "Azerbaijan issued a list of 216 victims of the Armenian massacres. However, the KGB proved that the names on the list were fake, either victims of the recent Spitak earthquake, long-dead people or people living in other parts of the Soviet Karabakh Army" which questions the reliability of this article and the pogrom as a whole. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even some Armenian sources acknowledge that the pogrom took place, e.g. an article on Epress.am in Russian. Also, there's a letter from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the UN Secretary-General mentioning Gugark. Brandmeistertalk 18:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like another state propaganda. No reliable sources, no deep analysis. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This nomination is made by banned user who also used a sock account to vote. Clearly, the only reason for this nomination is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as the article was kept as result of recent previous AFD. So what is the validity of yet another nomination, where we see some quite suspicious votes, and there's a vote stacking going on to get it deleted on reddit and possibly other places? Clearly, many IPs vote here because they were asked to do so. I suggest to close this AFD immediately, and stick to results of previous AFD. Grandmaster 09:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like how you ignored the fact that on reddit r/azerbaijan openly called for a brigade onto this (and the post got removed an entire day later) and most of the users who created accounts to vote on this AFD are from the Azerbaijani side. If we determined ignored all edits by banned accounts due to socketpuppetry as you seem to be implying, then the now banned user named CuriousGolden who made hundreds of malicious edits on Armenian villages would have had all his edits reverted, however the Azerbaijani wiki editors are preventing that from happening. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 16:30, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Valitchka edit

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

I've spent some time digging into the article subject's accomplishments listed in this article. It looks very impressive, and I'm sure he's a fine person, but I have come to the conclusion he is not notable. The "Diamond Awards" are given out by a local private education program. The Barack Obama award is also from them and has no connection whatsoever to actual Barack Obama, they also give out Bill Clinton, Ghandi, and Oprah Winfrey awards, to name just a few. The other awards are not notable either, the Ottawa Civic Appreciation Award is the only one that does not appear to originate from a private company of some sort. The novel he wrote when he was eight was published by a vanity press. The next one, a novel dealing with race relations supposedly written by a nine-year-old, was published by a company called "Rainbows are Everywhere" that I can't find any information on. I don't know about the rest, can't find them at all. Once you piece it together this reads like his mom made it to make her kid look good. It's all well and good to be supportive of your kid but we don't have to play along with this and pretend any of it is really notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found several in-depth news articles on Valitchka, none of which are used in the article but appear to meet WP:BASIC.[1][2][3][4] That said, the coverage seems to be based on the precocity factor. Does that make him notable enough for an encyclopedia article? I'm ambivalent. Schazjmd (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Alphonso, Caroline (2005-07-02). "'I am really just a kid like you'". The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont., Canada. pp. –2. ISSN 0319-0714. Retrieved 2021-05-12.
  2. ^ Campbell, Jennifer (2005-11-17). "10-year-old author turns life's experiences into bestsellers". The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont., Canada. pp. –1 Front. ISSN 0839-3222. Retrieved 2021-05-12.
  3. ^ Kostiw, Tanya (2009-01-30). "Obama meeting inspired Appleby College student". Oakville Beaver. Oakville, Ont., Canada. p. 1. ISSN 0834-6798. Retrieved 2021-05-12.
  4. ^ Inwood, Damian (June 12, 2005). "Book-smart boy wonder". The Province (Vancouver, Canada). p. 85.

References

My concern here is that the press coverage was all stage-managed as well. It isn't all that hard for a determined person to pitch a "human interest" story about a supposed boy genius and get some coverage. I feel like if a nine-year-old was really writing compelling novels about race relations it would get a lot of attention and the book would be in print somewhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's why I couldn't make up my mind. I didn't feel confident in the repetition of "bestselling" in the articles without any corroborating details (in what market, when, which book) either. Schazjmd (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure the "best-selling" thing is a straight-up lie. Wouldn't it be a huge news story if a self-published book by a child was a best seller? They would have had to front the cost of 10-20 million copies. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can write something better than this with the genuinely reliable sources. I recall engaging with this article before — I thought in fact that it had been deleted before, but it turns out I just revert-warred for a couple of days 13 years ago with the subject when he tried to turn it into a piece of advertorial self-promotion instead of a proper encyclopedia article. But that does demonstrate that there has been conflict of interest editing here which indeed leaves real doubt about whether everything in it is actually true. The problem is that the strongest notability claim (bestsellerdom) is entirely unverifiable (I'm having no better luck than anybody else above), and the listed awards are not major literary awards (GG, Giller, Griffin, Writers Trust) that would clinch "inherently notable because award" for a writer, and the overwhelming majority of the footnotes present here are unreliable primary sources that are not support for notability at all. Is it possible that somebody could genuinely do better? I don't know, but I won't say never. Is this good enough as is? Not by a long shot. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article's history has an appalling number of obvious throwaway WP:SPA socks, including a new one today, adding more no-name awards, positively gushing praise about him, and making melodramatic edit summaries [10]. If this is deleted I would suggest WP:SALT also be applied, whomever this is they are extremely persistent. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: based on Bearcat's reasoning above = notability has not been demonstrated, the gushing praise and puffery based on unreliable sources has made it impossible to separate fact from fiction in this mess, and the continuing sock puppetry is doing the subject no favours. Melcous (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Beeblebrox and Melcous. No notability established, self-promotion slick.--Darwinek (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly looks like self-promotion. If anything in the article were as good as it sounds, then clearly he would have been picked up by a reputable publisher. --hroest 01:09, 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. ✗plicit 03:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survive Alive House edit

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

Not finding any significant coverage from reliable sources independent from the subject. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 22:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 22:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 22:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 22:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources seen or found to vet notability per either GNG or any SNG related to either structures or organizations. Very WP:COMMONPLACE - FWIW, I live in a town of just over 10k people, and we have a similar program, with a volunteer fire department. 174.212.228.12 (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way to local of a topic and way to local of coverage about it. As the IP "voter" says, these types of organizations are extremely commonplace things. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:18, 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Mitchell edit

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

Fails to meet Notability guidelines. Cssiitcic (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cssiitcic (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cbl62: You may want to fix the first link in your comment, it leads back to this page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am not sure but it was probably this. Cbl62 (talk) 20:24, 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. ✗plicit 03:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Schmidt edit

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. This was kept at AfD previously on the mistaken beliefe that playing in the Australian Baseball League meets BASE/N, but clarification after the AfD indicates that it only covers the major leagues in the U.S. (AL, NL, Federal, Players, Negro leagues, etc.), KBO, and NPB. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability guidelines have changes as that previous AFD was from the era before WP:BASE/N established that the Australian league did not qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanneraol (talk • contribs) 21:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 22:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the ABL doesn't receive enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, and he's only locally notable as a collegiate athlete. SportingFlyer T·C 11:23, 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. ✗plicit 03:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

India International Trade Center edit

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

Can't find sourcing for this. It says it was a proposed building, that was 14 years ago! Maybe they decided not to build it? Rusf10 (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unable to find any sources to substantiate a page. VV 08:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreement with nomination and others in the comment thread. This article has no legitimate sourcing and no notability. Delete. ABT021 (talk) 15:11, 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. ✗plicit 03:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warriors (2014 film) edit

Warriors (2014 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFF. Like Reckless (2013 film), this is not a film, but a TV pilot that was filmed (for ABC) and never picked up[11] - an extremely common occurrence in TV. It has never been released anywhere at any time, in 2014 or otherwise, despite what the article implies. Coverage is from the first few months of 2014 and routine for pilot production. DoubleCross (‡) 19:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As with the other AfD, there's no evidence that this ever released or is even a film. Not all TV pilots are films and the fact that it was not picked up for series doesn't automatically make this a film. By all signs, the pilot looks to be non-notable and the fact that it was directed by a notable person doesn't mean that it should have an article. I don't even think a redirect is necessary, mostly because the term "film" is incorrect in this situation as far as we can tell. All of the RS for it describe it as a pilot, the only places that call it a film are this article and mirrors of said article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:TRIVIA that fails WP:GNG/WP:NFILM. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:20, 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. Daniel (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colby Pearson edit

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

There's some coverage in the Idaho State Journal ([12], [13], [14]) but not much elsewhere. Fails WP:GNG (needs coverage from multiple sources), fails WP:NGRIDIRON (having only played professionally for the XFL), and WP:NCOLLATH (non-notable college career). Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:17, 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 redirect to Querétaro F.C.. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Querétaro F.C. Reserves and Academy edit

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

Boldly redirected this, but the IP un-did the redirect. This is just a squad list for reserve and youth teams, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the references currently in the article are independent of the team or league, and the squads aren't otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a couple of references from notable sites, that highlighted the championship that the U-20 club won on 2016. SputnikXX (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both those new references also seem to lack depth. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:59, 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 and redirect to 2021 Virginia Attorney General election. Daniel (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 United States Attorney General elections edit

2021 United States Attorney General elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The title of this article is false, there are not "2021 United States Attorney General elections", but one election: 2021 Virginia Attorney General election. That election is of course notable, but there is no notability as a set or a need to repackage it here. Reywas92Talk 17:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 17:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 17:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only one contest meets the criteria. A redirect is possible, but I am not sure as a search term how usable it is. --Enos733 (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, the 2017 page was also deleted for the same reason. I'm going to add a redirect here so maybe a deletion is unnecessary. MrOinkingPig (talk) 13:20, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion relative to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America1000 15:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke ring (cooking) edit

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

Poor writing; mostly unsourced puffery LOMRJYO(talk•contrib) 17:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. LOMRJYO(talk•contrib) 17:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a number of reasonable sources at the bottom, all supporting the notability of the concept. The article could use a cleanup, certainly, but the topic seems clearly to meet WP:GNG. Poor writing is not a deletion criteria. PianoDan (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazraeh-ye Aliabad edit

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

Disambiguates only one title 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: per CSD G14 CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguates more than zero articles, so WP:G14 doesn't apply. However, why not turn it into a redirect to the one remaining entry? – Uanfala (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uanfala Of course it applies, "disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page." CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You've missed the beginning of the sentence, here's the full quote: Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page. For a page like Mazraeh-ye Aliabad to be eligible for G14, it would need to disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages. – Uanfala (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. (copy paste copy paste copy paste) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:49, 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. Daniel (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazraeh-ye Mehdiabad edit

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

Disambiguates only one title 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. (copy paste copy paste copy paste) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:49, 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. Daniel (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazraeh-ye Shahid Beheshti edit

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

Disambiguates only one title 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: per CSD G14 CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. (copy paste copy paste copy paste) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:49, 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. Daniel (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazraeh-ye Taqi edit

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

Disambiguates only one title 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. (copy paste copy paste copy paste) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:49, 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. Daniel (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazraeh-ye Amirabad edit

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

Disambiguates only one title 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: per CSD G14 CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. (copy paste copy paste copy paste) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A waste of time pushing so many of these to AfD. If a dab page with an appropriate title links only to one page, just redirect it to that page. ----Pontificalibus 07:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a waste of time. Nobody is required to participate in such discussions and an admin can just soft-close the discussion in case of no participation. Anyway, the redirect should be the other way round, so it is not as simple as you think. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:10, 19 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. Daniel (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazraeh-ye Khatun edit

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

Disambiguates only one title 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. (copy paste copy paste copy paste) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:49, 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. Daniel (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazraeh-ye Sadat edit

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

Disambiguates only one title 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: per CSD G14 CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. (copy paste copy paste copy paste) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:49, 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. Daniel (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazraeh-ye Hasan edit

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

Disambiguates only one title 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. (copy paste copy paste copy paste) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:48, 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. Daniel (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazraeh-ye Yezdani edit

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

Disambiguates only one title 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: per CSD G14 CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably just another page I unlinked the abadis from which now has nothing left to disambiguate. (copy paste copy paste copy paste) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:48, 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 speedy delete. Missvain (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazraeh-ye Ali edit

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

Disambiguates only one title 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:43, 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. Clear consensus for the article to be retained. Discussion about its content can be further discussed on its talk page, if desired. North America1000 15:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Academies edit

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

This article is written like an attack article on 25 years old accounts and business related journals publisher based out of North Carolina, it should be deleted. Applus2021 (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: merge with what?--ReyHahn (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article provides informative knowledge about possibly fraudulent corporation.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, It is a WP:SYNTH story comes under attack, there is no proof of police investigation or fraud and no complaint by anyone. Applus2021 (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it cites enough sources for WP:GNG notability. Not sure what "25 years old" refers to, as article indicates the organisation was still active in 2018. Probably reads like an "attack article" because that reflects its sources, and that's how articles tend to read when they're about fraudulent or criminal organisations. Meticulo (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, sources are taken to write a WP:SYNTH story, please see the original old article [15] Applus2021 (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm very uncomfortable with this article. While Beall's list did a lot of consciousness raising about the risks of predatory open access journals, I'm inclined to think he was overly aggressive in his categorisation, and I do not think we should be so classifying publishers based solely on Beall's say-so. If we can't find better sources for the claims in the article, I'm inclined to !vote delete per WP:TNT. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Allied is one of the worse predatory publishers out there, being one of the OMICS affiliate. Beall may have been overly enthusiastic in some cases, but this is clearly not one of them. If you want other sources, there are plenty e.g. [16] about the fake conferences hosted by Allied. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was aware of what we say about the OMICS connection and the significance of that before I wrote my comment. I'm a little bit reassured by your confidence in there being more RSes for the stronger claims in the article, but I'd like to see the sourcing improve before this AfD concludes. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The best of worlds would be if we could delete Allied Academies (the company). Unfortunately that's not possible and this company has garnered enough attention in reliable sources to pass GNG. That none of the coverage is positive is not our problem. --Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. based on news coverage. I wonder if the nominator has a COI! Peter303x (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Informative and useful for those who have encountered Allied Academies or one of their journals or conferences. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 05:02, 19 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. Daniel (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge (rhetoric) edit

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

An isolated stub article which has not been improved in years and appears to be in breach of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and possibly WP:NOTESSAY. Meticulo (talk) 15:16, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 United Wiffleball National Championship edit

2021 United Wiffleball National Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent, reliable sourcing for this tournament, lacks notability. Fram (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament was just announced and is the second national championship tournament. There will be additional media coverage in the months leading to the tournament, as there were last year. MDpoliticsandmedia (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting this and the 2020 article to a parent article about the tournament, but no article like that currently exists. Smartyllama (talk) 12:16, 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 wrong venue. It's at RfD now. (non-admin closure) — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Oliver edit

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

This article is a redirect to a redirect. This other redirect is not really accurate, as it leads to Injustice (professional wrestling), which is the league in where the pro wrestler Jordan Oliver competes, yet not him. PabloLikesToWrestle (talk) 14:33, 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 merge to Michele Bachmann#Electoral history. Missvain (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Michele Bachmann edit

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

This is not an electoral history; it is a list of elections and results. There are no in-depth sources covering this topic. Bachmann in the grand scheme is a relatively minor figure in US political history, having never served above the role of the US House of Representatives. User:Namiba 14:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:57, 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. Though the nomination was withdrawn, the article needs to be improved by expanding it and adding most (if not all) of the sources in this discussion to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 13:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xinjiang Victims Database edit

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

Subject is not notable. The article is about an NGO which fails WP:ORG, because the article's sources do not contain significant coverage of the topic itself. Rather, they tend to simply cite the database or quote its founder, Gene Bunin. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 13:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn by nominator. It seems that a good selection of sources have been found. The article still needs improvement, but it seems clear that there is significant coverage of the database itself and by all appearances the database passes WP:ORG - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 21:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, fails WP:SIGCOV. A merge is also possible, but not sure what the best article would be. Jumpytoo Talk 17:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources Silver seren, in particular the Eurasianet and scholar article gives enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 17:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be plenty of direct, reliable coverage of the database. Funny enough, primarily because of the Chinese government response to its existence. Including in their propaganda outlets. Some examples:
So, yeah, plenty of notable coverage, if biased in regards to the Chinese news sources. SilverserenC 17:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately the Chinese news sources are WP:DEPRECATED and cannot be used to establish notability. The Eurasianet sources are definitely WP:SIGCOV, and I can't read the scholar article but if it has discussion of the source it used it could be enough to pass the bar. The rest of the sources seem to be just passing mentions which doesn't provide WP:SIGCOV. Jumpytoo Talk 18:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not surprised they are deprecated, considering they are very clear propaganda pieces, but I feel that their large amount of coverage of the subject of this article does contribute to notability of it. As for the scholarly article, just look at the abstract, since it uses this databse as it's primary focus:
"Why does China view its Turkic Muslims as a security threat? Although scholars have written a good deal on China’s repression of minorities, the number of empirical studies about China’s ever-expanding incarceration and surveillance of Turkic Muslims is rather limited. To identify the reasons for China’s repressive policies, this article draws evidence from the Xinjiang Victims Database that presents video testimonies of 8973 people whose family members and friends are in China’s prisons and detention camps. The evidence shows that China’s policies stem from a constructivist securitization approach where religion, culture and identity play central roles although the country frames its policies through a realist discourse on terrorism and security."
And there's more sources that can be found, these were just from the first two pages of Google results. SilverserenC 18:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jumpytoo: The journal article includes detailed descriptions of the source, including the number of testimonies present, the content of the testimonies, the individual responsible for founding the database and the time the database was founded, the reasons the database was created, the number of variables available in the database, the ways in which the database classifies detentions, a discussion on the limitation on the database's use, as well as comments on whether or not the testimonies recorded in the database are consistent with leaked government documents and reports made by human rights organizations. The journal article itself heavily uses the data obtained from the database in performing its analysis, and it describes the study as using a "novel" source at the time it was published. In my mind, the journal article provides significant coverage of the database itself. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for checking that for me, that would definitely be SIGCOV. That with the Eurasiannet is enough so I'll go change my vote. Jumpytoo Talk 17:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORG. This article uses six sources for one sentence saying "the XVD exists", and the only change in the week its been up has been to say who founded it. There is no reason for this article to exist when you can simply copy this sentence to any article mentioning the database. Merge with Uyghur Genocide if we must.BSMRD (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You forgot your signature. Also, BSMRD, apologies, but you seem like a re-activated account? Since you started editing again after 2 years just 3 weeks ago (and only 1 edit before that time) and immediately began editing Xinjiang cotton industry and Uyghur genocide with edit summaries like "Removed see also link to genocide denial, no other genocide article links to genocide denial in see also and the status of this genocide is a matter of serious debate". So both rather advanced in your Wikpedia specific argumentation, but also on very specific article topics. SilverserenC 05:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose my recent activity would seem somewhat suspicious. I suppose that there isn't really anything I can say beyond "yes I am the same person", I am familiar with wikipedia policy and use it to justify my edits especially in contentious articles like those on the Xinjiang issue. I will freely admit to being biased against the idea of a "Uyghur genocide", and perhaps I should have jumped (back, though this is really the first time I have actually gotten in it) into wikipedia in a less contentious area. I have found I rather enjoy editing and have started the (relatively) less contentious work of fixing the tone of John Brown (abolitionist). I suppose your concerns are founded but I am the same person, just with more free time and a bigger interest in editing. Also thanks for spotting me forgetting the signature, my bad. BSMRD (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the sources presented by Silver seren, the database has been the subject of a 2018 long-form piece in The Globe and Mail, as well as coverage in USA Today. In my mind, the piece from The Globe and Mail undoubtedly shows significant coverage, since the story is entirely focused on the database itself. This, taken with the detailed descriptions of the organization (including information on its founding) in a peer reviewed journal article mentioned by Silver seren and the non-trivial mentions of the source across news publications, constitute significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. As a result, the organization should be presumed notable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep or merge. Cited by media and scholars, although the coverage has trouble meeting SIGCOV, ex [17] "The largest public collection is the Xinjiang Victims Database, managed by independent scholar Gene A. Bunin, which at the time of writing has collected over 4900 accounts describing...". If not kept, this is certainly worth merging somewhere, and it's not like the article is big enough that said merge would be harder to do. Given [18] I am leaning to keep over merge. Certainly this shouldn't be just deleted.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:50, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Powerful Karma (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala model edit

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

I think this topic is not apt for encyclopedia. Powerful Karma (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 12:18, 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orissa Balu edit

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

I believe this article fails WP:BLPFRINGE. The subject of the article has been discussed in a few WP:SENSATIONAL tabloid stories, but without so much as a hint of serious analysis for the WP:FRINGE claims. The institute and research programs seem to be all self-funded and completely unmoored from relevant academic work. jps (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An initial look at the in-article sources show they're all from India which is not always but often an indication of lack of general notability. When searching for more sources I find a few about the legendary continent claims, a Quora entry about the continent, a school schedule list listing Balu. The few critical sources that mention Balu are wikis. No usable source that I can see that critically assesses Balu's work although some are about topics of interest themselves rather than relating to the person. —PaleoNeonate – 21:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only The Hindu gives some coverage to the subject. The other RS make passing mentions and focus on the environment issue the subject works on. Not enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. VV 08:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, a WP:BLPFRINGE article. Gotitbro (talk) 19:07, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Tabar edit

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

As per WP:BIOFAMILY, familial relationships are no indication of notability. As far as I can see, there's nothing known about the subject themselves except their birth/death year. Alivardi (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have read and heard about Ali Tabar was the son of Sipihr Shikoh and only grandson of Dara Shikoh known to my knowledge. And he was died 6 month after his birth 1676 . If you have to delete this page you can delete it. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete because notability is not inherited. A 6 month old baby more so. VV 08:38, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changa (app) edit

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

no indication of notability. Unable to find WP:SIGCOV with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content DJRSD (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Seems to me like an obvious COI. Carwile2 *message* 13:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carwile2 I'm a content writer and this application was getting popular in India, so I decided to create this page out of my own interest to gain experience. Sorry, I'm nowhere associated with the concerned organization. Therefore, it is not a COIWoodpecker123 (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ankit Yallapu (Sockpuppet?) deleted the original CSD tags and the page is in broken English. Whether or not there's a COI, I would argue that this project needs to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's standards. Carwile2 *message* 14:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete evidently fails WP:NCORP. Also article is likely the product of COI/UPE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No amount of rewriting can save an article that ain't notable. VV 08:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another indigenous yet non-notable app for our glorious atmanirbhar bharat. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:51, 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 redirect to Lion Country Safari. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elgin Center edit

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

I emailed Lion Country Safari to ask about the center, apparently it is closed for good. There are no references in the article referring to the center, just papers that used the zoo's animals. A large portion of the article may have been written by staff from the zoo and I can find very little online about it. I reckon it's WP:NONNOTABLE and should be redirected to Lion Country Safari. Jack (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lion Country Safari per nom. The few citations that are in the article have nothing to do with the center itself but just the research conducted there. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:48, 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 redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Radio Philippines Network. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 09:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RPN iWatch News edit

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

Fails WP:N and WP:GNG. ----Rdp060707|talk 08:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 08:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:52, 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 delete. Sandstein 13:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neelam Chhiber edit

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

Non-notable subject. References are either primary sources, interviews or links to a non-major award received by subject. nearlyevil665 05:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 05:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 05:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The entity fails in every aspect. P.S: RungtaCol - I didn't understand the logic behind your page move? Kindly elaborate by citing wikipedia norms pertaining to this entity. - Hatchens (talk) 11:03, 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. Sandstein 13:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Rai edit

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

Fail of WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. nearlyevil665 05:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 05:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 14:21, 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 speedy keep. Missvain (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Gupta (academic) edit

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

Unable to find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. DJRSD (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has all WP:RELIABLE sources to pass WP:BIO and the respective person is editor-in-chief for a prestigious Journal of Marketing Research, published by the American Marketing Association along with notable awards and publications. Applus2021 (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is the creator of the article. DJRSD (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Cecilia High School (Nebraska) edit

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

Does not look notable. EpicPupper (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of sourcing available, as with any other American high school. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only sourcing that I could find is on extremely trivial topics, like that the students of the school learned how to use iPad. Which hardly passes any kind of standard of notability. Let alone the ones in WP:NORG. I'm more then willing to change my vote to keep though if Necrothesp or anyone else can provide WP:THREE sources that discuss the school directly and in-depth. It should be pretty easy to find a few usable sources if this is really a notable topic. Especially considering there is supposedly "plenty of sourcing available." If that's the case, then I would find it hard to believe that none of them are in-depth and it is on people who say there are usable references to provide them. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no claims in the article that suggest it will pass WP:NSCHOOL The references in the article do not meet WP:GNG and my search only found primary and trivial mentions. Jeepday (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There appears to be dozens of recent articles detailing the schools sports teams in Nebraska newspapers. The articles demonstrate that the school is a notable participant in statewide athletics. Due to it being a private Catholic school, there may be a lack of the kind of sources that public high schools have, so the athletics mentions are more important than usual. Thriley (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thriley, transactional mentions such as the one you added to the article do not speak to notability, and neither do the mere listening of athletic results. I'm nit voting here, as there isn't anything in the article to show notability, no sources I've turned up are significant, and the Diocese article has no education section to redirect it to. However, I would tend to think this school is notable. It's going to take going to a library or newspapers.com, but there are probably detailed articles somewhere in the land beyond Google. Local papers, Catholic publications, somewhere. Unfortunately school notability has become a matter of "put up or shut up", and distance precludes me from doing a library search. 174.212.227.114 (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Catholic publications would work for notability because they are technically primary references. Nor would local news stories on their own. Although, maybe a case could made that the addition of some local news stories to supplement the regional ones about their sports teams could be enough. It would be stretching things though. Especially if they are just more stories about the same old sports related topics that we already have references for. That said, if anyone wants to skim newspapers.com and come up with some usable material I'd be willing to change my vote to weak keep. It can't be brief, trivial, or otherwise just passing mentions though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thriley: I also found two sources from Omaha. However, they are quite routine. One of them is on a state championship title though. I cannot access either of them. [20][21] Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, from what I see, the article shows that St. Cecilia won a statewide athletic title. This demonstrates notability to me. Thriley (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Honestly, the fact that this school has multiple state championship titles makes it clear that there are more sources than what I have linked. In my opinion, it is unlikely that the school's titles did not attract enough attention for a stand-alone article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do schools with notable sports teams usually automatically get their own articles in-lack of anything else being discussed about them because of it? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The request for deletion cites not meeting the notability standard... so yes, in my opinion if a school meets a notability standard through its athletics it should qualify. DoctorTexan (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took me a while to respond. I agree with Doctor Texan. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many sources. See:

https://www.ksnblocal4.com/content/news/St-Cecilia-names-new-activities-director-569974021.html https://www.hastingstribune.com/news/st-cecilia-to-add-ag-education-ffa/article_fa348428-67e8-11eb-b813-834a6d0e17af.html https://www.hastingstribune.com/st-cecilia-ready-to-stage-high-school-musical/article_1ae86108-9d72-11eb-9eba-3bba2ba15e3f.html https://www.ksnblocal4.com/2020/09/03/st-cecilia-confirms-covid-19-case-to-parents/ https://nebraska.tv/sports/high-school/hastings-st-cecilia-grinds-out-c1-seminfinals-win https://www.wowt.com/content/news/Warrant-issued-for-Nebraska-teacher-and-coach-accused-of-inappropriate-relationship-with-student-509379791.html ... I can keep going but I think I have made my point. DoctorTexan (talk)

Local sources do not count. However, mine are good. More probably exist. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:33, 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 redirect to 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis. As an uninvolved admin I'm closing this. Missvain (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Tel Aviv rocket strikes edit

2021 Tel Aviv rocket strikes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article is a small subset of 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis which doesn't need its own article. The 130 rocket attack described here is part of a larger attack of 400+ rockets that is currently taking place in places other than just Tel Aviv. AlexEng(TALK) 05:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AlexEng(TALK) 05:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. AlexEng(TALK) 05:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. AlexEng(TALK) 05:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. AlexEng(TALK) 05:57, 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 as G5. ✗plicit 02:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kumaran Thangarajan edit

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

I would have been BLPRODED this article but I found a few routine coverage of him during WP:BEFORE so am opting for AfD instead. Looks like a fail of WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. No WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable secondary sources. nearlyevil665 05:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 05:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 05:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom.2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:1994:1790:4070:5EB8 (talk) 13:09, 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 as G5. ✗plicit 02:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hema Rajkumar edit

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

This would have been BLPRODED but I found a few routine coverage of her during WP:BEFORE so am opting for AfD instead. Looks like a fail of WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. No WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable secondary sources. nearlyevil665 05:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 05:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom.2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:1994:1790:4070:5EB8 (talk) 13:10, 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 as WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 02:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shabana Shajahaan edit

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

Non-notable actress, fail of WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. nearlyevil665 05:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 05:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability. Fails GNG. DJRSD (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom.2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:1994:1790:4070:5EB8 (talk) 13:10, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walkers Crossing, West Virginia edit

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

I have doubts that this one is notable. Coincidentally, the two closest places are both iffy- Scott, West Virginia (AfD discussion) and Tallmans, West Virginia (AfD discussion). 1906, 1924, and 1926 topos show one or two buildings where a road meets the railroad. By next small-scale topo (1961), the name is gone. Appears in 1899 geological survey of WV as a railroad stop between Washington and Meldahls; exact same situation in the 1903 version as well. Listed as a B&O station in 1906. Nothing on newspapers.com. Appears in maps on this Corps of Engineers report on the Ohio River as "Walkers Crossing Sta.", but with no description. Hamill Kenny's book of West Virginia place names lists Walkers Crossing in a list of place names derived from the railroad, but gives no details as to what Walkers Crossing was. Found some passing mentions in soil surveys and in lists of railroad stops. Not in Leavengood's history of Wood County. This seems to be a minor railroad station that lacks in-depth coverage and is not notable. Hog Farm Talk 04:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 04:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 04:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of legal recognition. No evidence of WP:GNG. Fails WP:GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kenny in fact lists it in the same sentence as Scott. A Northwestern Virginia Railroad Company report from 1853 informs us that it was next to Walker's Farm. This indicates that it was a farm crossing. But I cannot find out anything more about it. This is not notable. Uncle G (talk) 11:15, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Knutsdotter edit

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

To start, this is just a horribly written article. It is supposed to be about one person, but in reality is a composite biography that covers several different people. I have found no evidence that the subject herself is notable. Rusf10 (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This person was a 13th century noblewoman, but the article seems somewhat hazy about who she actually was, as there are at least three people named "Knut" who are suggested as having possibly been her father. In fact, the article doesn't say what year the subject was born or died. This article was created 14 years ago with no sources, and it still doesn't have any. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Unsourced article. Kolma8 (talk) 22:26, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Proof of WP:V has been provided, which was my concern. (non-admin closure) Rusf10 (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Çamiçi High Plateau edit

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

I can't find this. So unless, someone provides a source it fails WP:V Rusf10 (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:20, 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 delete. North America1000 12:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Schneider edit

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

Glaringly fails WP:NPOL. I can't imagine how this page has been allowed to stick around for so long. KidAd • SPEAK 03:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not automatically qualify for Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win, and the existence of a small handful of campaign coverage during the election does not translate into a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if the existence of a few pieces of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt a candidate from NPOL, then every candidate would always be exempted from NPOL. Rather, to make a candidate notable enough for inclusion without winning the election, she must pass one of two other tests: either (a) she has preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her a Wikipedia article on those grounds anyway (e.g. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) she can show such an unusual volume, depth or geographic range of coverage, expanding far beyond just what every other candidate can also show, that she would have a credible claim to her candidacy being much more special than everybody else's candidacies in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). But this fails to source any of the information about her career background at all, which means it isn't demonstrating that she would pass test A — and with just eight footnotes of which half are blogs, routine public opinion polls of the type that every candidate appears in and routine candidate profiles in all-candidate directories, it isn't demonstrating that she would pass test B either. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while there is some career background at The Roads to Congress 2008 (pp. 173-174), a 2008 profile with some commentary The independence of Jan Schneider (Sarasota Herald-Tribune), and a 2017 profile Six-time candidate Jan Schneider announces start of campaign for U.S. House seat (Bradenton Herald), there does not appear to be sufficient support for WP:NPOL, WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, or WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Florida's 13th congressional district#Election Results. She is a perennial candidate in this district, and is therefore somewhat notable enough not to have her page completely deleted. If she doesn’t meet WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, or WP:BASIC, as I am seeing, fine! But she is notable enough to be redirected to the FL 13 election results page, since she is a perennial candidate for that congressional district (FL 16 after 2013). This was also a solution suggested in the previous articles for deletion request, and that seems like a good solution. Muhibm0307 (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat. Not entirely convinced the redirect makes sense. SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 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 redirect to List of World War II weapons used in Ireland. (non-admin closure) TheWikiholic (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish military equipment of World War II edit

List of Irish military equipment of World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a list of lists. The only two articles listed, List of World War II weapons used in Ireland and List of aircraft of Ireland in World War II are categorized and seem to stand on their own. Don't see the necessity of this page. Gjs238 (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Gjs238 (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Gjs238 (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Gjs238 (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:58, 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 delete. Sandstein 13:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Heller (entrepreneur) edit

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

Non-notable individual. Could not find significant coverage, only trivial mentions, as also elicited by the references present in the article. PK650 (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable per nom. Article also appears promotional and not NPOV. Ew3234 (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:59, 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 delete. BD2412 T 00:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baramulla Public School edit

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL Sungodtemple (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep.Delete The article looks like auto-generated content. The article is young and perhaps some other editors can continue to grow it. Ew3234 (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While it claims to be founded in 1994, it likely not an established school from google seaching around. Changing to delete. Ew3234 (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely non-notable. I was nomming editor for CSD, but that was removed. JesseRafe (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the school does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS. WP:BEFORE shows no sources to support WP:GNG either. VV 08:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a few brief name drops in articles about other stuff, but that's about it. From what I could find there is nothing out there on this that would help it pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article is very weak. Catfurball (talk) 20:11, 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. If new sources become available, a draft can be initiated in draftspace and submitted for approval through the WP:AFC process. BD2412 T 00:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dharsha Gupta edit

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

The subject clearly fails WP:NACTOR. It is a promotional article as the subject participated in the recently aired reality show Cooku with Comali. The page has lot of edits from an IP involved in recent socky puppetry investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Romil.Choudary/Archive. 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:1994:1790:4070:5EB8 (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)}}[reply]

  • Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor--above text is copied from article talk page. No opinion at this time on the article per se, but if the SPI accusation is accurate (and having worked on other IP-nominated AfDs for articles created by the master mentioned above, I find it credible), then the article is eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G5. --Finngall talk 00:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G5 as creator’s sockpuppetry has been confirmed by CU. --Finngall talk 02:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 00:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 00:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 00:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR as she has played in 3 multiple TV series, all spanning hundreds of episodes, and she is playing lead or recurring lead on the TV series, thus she plays "notable role". Google News search on her exact name would return around 3,000+ search results, indicating notability. A few of the results I sampled are correctly relating to her, whether about her life or about her work. Cooku with Comali is just one of her latest show, as she has played in TV series before. Based on the allegation of promotional tones, I don't think there is much of WP:PUFFERY and I think the article is worded quite neutrally.SunDawn (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC) Speedy delete per creator is blocked as a sock. Article should be rescued after speedily deleted. SunDawn (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Clearly passes WP:NACTOR no doubt. The upcoming film project she is being part of has declared her as the lead actress and the name of the film has been released. Even if its a sockpuppetry the user has gave a good piece of work and trustworthy sources.User: 49.196.6.191 talk: 49.196.6.191 00:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC) Striking blocked sock. --Finngall talk 03:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - sockpuppetry should never be encouraged. Onel5969 TT me 13:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article created by sock and no indication of satisfying either WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. VV 08:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Delete per nom. Fails NACTOR. Kolma8 (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That the article's creator has been confirmed by CU is sufficient alone to justify speedy deletion, as well as normal deletion under WP:AFD Johnnie Bob (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails NACTOR Ravensfire (talk) 20:33, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_May_12&oldid=1024238319"