Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 24 August 26 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Ending[edit]

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

Do not appear to satisfy WP:NBAND. Little to no coverage on their career and no notable releases. – DarkGlow • 23:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 23:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 23:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 23:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete other than their own website, none of the refs work, and I can't find any substantial coverage. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nom - sources are good for SIGCOV, per Ganbaruby. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaolin Traitorous[edit]

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

De-PRODded with the edit summary "deproded. Article can obviously be improved and de-orphaned"; no sources were added and no improvements were made, of course.

Prior to my PROD, I did as thorough of a BEFORE check as I can for an English speaker and found nothing except trivial mentions in lists and database listings (oh, and pirate sites). No doubt the movie exists, but is it notable per WP:NFILM? Not as far as I can find. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Deproder here. Personal attacks don't help. I have added the Chinese name of the movie and de-orphaned the article at the time of the deproding. Minor improvements, I agree, but "no improvements were made, of course" is inaccurate. I have helped substantially improve HK movies articles in the past, and by experience decent sources can often be found, mostly in Chinese language after some serious digging is performed. I wish this can be done for this article, hence my deproding, which as expected is triggering an AfD, which will attract more attention than a PROD and which hopefully will see a poor stub being converted into a decent article. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for removing the prod and for your improvements to the article, Underwaterbuffalo (talk · contribs). I agree that for Hong Kong movie articles, "by experience decent sources can often be found, mostly in Chinese language after some serious digging is performed". This is the case here. Cunard (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Nothing on a WP:BEFORE. Kolma8 (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Kolma8, I asked Ganbaruby (who commented below, and who can read Chinese) to have a look at Cunard's references, and they've confirmed it constitutes SIGCOV (as opposed to just trivial mentions or ads or something), so I'd like to move for withdrawl - will you strike your vote so I can do so? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Premeditated Chaos, you got it. Kolma8 (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2. I have made improvements to the article and added an English language ref: a PhD thesis that details the movie and uses it as an example across 14 pages. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've reviewed the Chinese-language sources above, and I can confirm that there is WP:SIGCOV here. You could build a "Production" header here, and also use the review in the second source for a "Critical reception". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mod Dam 1199 R[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mod Dam 1199 R (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 yet another promotional article about the artist/architect Mario Kleff by a COI/UPE editor who has now been indeffed. This motorcycle, which was a Honda modified by Kleff is non-notable, it caught fire and burned up not long after. Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS. The short-lived modded motorcycle does not meet WP:GNG, and does not seem like encyclopedic material. Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a vanity project. Is it notable, that is probably hard to determine, it is a 1200cc Ducati engine in 125 frame. It has some coverage but it is from a blocked UPE. Get rid. It is just another custom bike. scope_creepTalk 08:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a one off creation is nothing as notable as a Triton, Tribsa or even Norvin of which many were created. ww2censor (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Idunnox3 (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NFT. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per my comments in the previous nomination. All of the third-party sources that are actually about the subject are blogs repeating information from the self-published Facebook posts, and can hardly be considered to help establish notability per the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pinging previous AfD participants John B123, NemesisAT, AdoTang, Sagotreespirit, Lilporchy, and Jackattack1597. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdraw. The user who made that article has since expanded it, providing more info. (non-admin closure) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Rundell[edit]

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

After a brief Google Search, the only other things I'm finding about him besides him signing the role is him being on a stamp. Definitely not notable just because he signed the roll. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) – The Grid (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Thomas Larkin[edit]

William Thomas Larkin (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 supported by one blog entry, which is also just a list of events in his life with no explanatory text. This is light years away from meeting any prong of GNG, it is not substantial coverage, it is not reliable, it is questionable that a blog that exists to track all bishops of the Catholic Church could be indepdent in a meaningful way, not one part of GNG is met. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A perusal of the sources shows a directory of the ordination of bishops in the US, which dirtectory listing is clearly not enough to pass GNG. It also shows one source that is probably about this Larkin, but is actually about his predecessor in one of his positions of a parish rector who demanded that he be appointed as the next rector, but that coverage does not meet the indepth requirement of GNG. All the other mentions are false positives about other people. I see no indication of Larkin passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not voting now and may not vote on this one, but I want to point out that some and maybe a substantial amount of the article is lifted from a website (try copy-paste Googling). Does it therefore qualify for speedy deletion? I'm not too familiar with speedy criteria. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and gave the article a copy edit to address the copy-pasting concern expressed by DiamondRemley39. Cbl62 (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep per WP:GNG and per guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Notability guide. One of the most important figures in the Catholic church in Florida in the last half of the 20th century and a close associate of Pope John Paul II. Larkin oversaw the creation of 19 new parishes and a diocesan radio station. He is also the namesake of the Bishop Larkin School in Port Richey (see here and here). An in-depth front page biographical profile was published by the Tampa Bay Times and can be found (1) here (part 1) and here (part 2). Additional SIGCOV can be found (2) here (part 1/part 2), (3) here part 1/part 2, (4) here, (5) here, (6) here, (7)here, (8) here, (9) here, and (10) here. Cbl62 (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnpacklambert: In light of the sourcing above, please consider withdrawing this nom. Cbl62 (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No I will not withdraw this nomination based on a bunch of obscure hyper local sources. Especially considering that absolutely zero sources have been added to the article. The article is still only sourced to a blog style list source that is not reliable, and nothing changes that until someone actually adds sources to the article, and I remain unconvinced that coverage in a local paper is enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have here SIGCOV in The Tampa Tribune, the Tampa Bay Times, The Orlando Sentinel, and the Sun-Sentinel. These are major metropolitan dailies; there is nothing "obscure" or "hyper local" about such sourcing. And such sourcing has now been added to the article. Cbl62 (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. gnu57 04:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. gnu57 04:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BISHOPS. StAnselm (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which actually says that bishops are not notable by default and that more than just church records are needed, which is absolutely all we had when I started this nomination. Did you even read what you linked to, because it does not actually support that bishops are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG is met by the sources listed above. The demand that newspaper coverage be national to count towards notability is not part of the GNG, but the nominator (or any editor) is welcome to start an RFC to suggest such a policy update. Jclemens (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Being a diocesan bishop in the Catholic church is enough to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per all above comments, especially Cbl62 for doing a basic google search - which per WP:BEFORE is the responsibility of the nominator. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a reasonable before search and came up with absolutely nothing. The above is an unfair and unjustified attack on my actions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You were advised a couple of days ago that not withdrawing this was going to make you look bad. It's now in SNOW territory: even if you did a BEFORE search, it failed to find extensive newspaper coverage which every participant but you appears to have found compelling. What, exactly, is the point of leaving this open and un-withdrawn? I simply do not get it. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm conscious that local coverage can still be considered local coverage, even when a subject's local newspaper happens to be a national daily. In fact, policies include specific examples of exactly that. However, in this instance, the combination of coverage and SNG criteria is enough to get us there, I think. St★lwart111 01:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - given the nominator has now been blocked for sock-puppetry and disruption, and is the only person here advocating for deletion, this can probably be closed per WP:SNOW. St★lwart111 01:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Bernie Mac Show. Less Unless (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wanda "Baby" McCullough[edit]

Wanda "Baby" McCullough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable character. Sahaib3005 (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sahaib3005 (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Half (2006 British film)[edit]

The Other Half (2006 British 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)

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hired Heart[edit]

The Hired Heart (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 film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. The article has already been soft-deleted as a result of this simultaneous AfD. If the article is REFUNDed, it may be renominated. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RONGETZ[edit]

RONGETZ (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 notable international coverage, no verifiable sources for their work. Subject has never earned any major awards or professional distinctions. Seems to be a vanity article for the subject, who may possibly be among the main contributors of the article (or is employing others connected to them to edit). A little confused because according to this, the article had been up for AfD in 2016; the result was delete. Yet here it is five years later. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CurryTime7-24: no, the redirect RONGETZ ( aka Stephane RONGET) was deleted because of the parentheses, but this article was never put up for AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See the external links section for several credits on the BBC (which is international) and France Musique, the radio network of France Radio. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC playlists show the song was only played once, not playlisted or put on rotation as WP:NMUSIC states. The French sources look better. Richard3120 (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ravana Brahma[edit]

Ravana Brahma (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 film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pilla Zamindar (1980 film)[edit]

Pilla Zamindar (1980 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)

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mosagadu[edit]

Mosagadu (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 film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep / withdrawn (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Major Chandrakanth (1993 film)[edit]

Major Chandrakanth (1993 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)

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two full length reviews found at Sivaranjani magazine[1] Zamin Ryot (Telugu newspaper).[2] -- Ab207 (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sita (1993). "సినిమా సమీక్ష: మేజర్ చంద్రకాంత్". Sivaranjani. Retrieved 4 August 2021.
  2. ^ Rahim, Alluru (30 April 1993). "ధీటైన నటనా ప్రతిభ కు ముసలితనం అడ్డు కాలేదు: మేజర్ చంద్రకాంత్" (PDF). Zamin Ryot. p. 11.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ksheera Sagara (film)[edit]

Ksheera Sagara (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)

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources found, nominator withdrew nomination. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Chowdary[edit]

Justice Chowdary (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 film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rao, Venkat (31 May 1982). "చిత్ర సమీక్ష: జస్టిస్ చౌదరి". Andhra Patrika.
  2. ^ Palakodeti (13 June 1982). "ఎం. ట్. ఆర్. విశ్వరూపం : జస్టిస్ చౌదరి". Sitara.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flashpoint (politics)[edit]

Flashpoint (politics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article has not been improved in years. It should be deleted.Sahaib3005 (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of politics related deletion discussions. Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the WP:NOTDICT policy. There used to be more details in the article but they were deleted (cards on table, by myself) as they had never been sourced. The article had been tagged as unsourced since 2009 (yes 2009) and no one was ever able to provide even a single source to back up an example. It's clear at this point that no one cared enough about that, so all we have now is a dictionary entry, and not a very good one at that. We're an encyclopaedia, Wiktionary can be found elsewhere. Canterbury Tail talk 22:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 18:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an unnecessary dictionary entry. Geschichte (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amara Deepam (1977 film)[edit]

Amara Deepam (1977 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)

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The film is a big commercial success in box-office and ran for more than 100 days. It is one of the great action films of Krishnam Raju. Please keep the film. Thank you.Rajasekhar1961 12:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Chemical Technology[edit]

Faculty of Chemical Technology (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 been entirely uncited for 9 years, which is a problem in itself, though when searching for this I don't believe this meets notability guidelines. This is simply a departmental section of University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague (which is a valid page) and is the only one from that page that has its own article.

The article itself sounds like it's just lifted from a web page and is rather uncyclopedicly written because of it. If this page is voted for keeps it should be improved and cited. I considered proposing merging, but given the information on the main university page it already has enough relevant information. Maybe a sentence or two could be added.

Sometimes, a department page for a major university is warranted if there is very significant research there historically, major history, etc that makes it noteworthy. For this though, I was not able to find sufficient sources to validate its keeping --Tautomers(T C) 21:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, already mentioned at target. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jibon Theke Paoya[edit]

Jibon Theke Paoya (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 short film, no significant coverage from WP:RS, no significant review or anything. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing to help pass GNG/NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Scholnick[edit]

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

Successful, but doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not satisfy required criteria. Google search offers almost no useful references, most of the existing being wikipedia connected.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Altoz[edit]

Altoz (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 manufacturer of equipment. PROD was declined, but no additional sources were supplied. I've looked and only found more of the same press release/equipment catalog style coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, this article has all the hallmarks of a promotional piece. NemesisAT said "I'm finding additional sources in a search and, combined with what is here, should be enough to establish notability" when they deprodded--well, without serious coverage this needs to be deleted. This looks like a PR piece, and so does this--it seems like Turf Magazine is just another industry mouthpiece, and this "local business leader" bit is no better. The rest of the sources aren't really worth discussing either. Delete. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: I blocked the most recent editor per UPE: it is obvious what they were doing. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article creator probably was a COI/UPE, but they haven't made any edits since creating the article years ago, so probably not worth bothering with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of significance. scope_creepTalk 23:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks more like a product guide. Kablammo (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)D[reply]
  • Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2021 United States Capitol attack or to a related, more spefici article. There is clear consensus that a standalone is not warranted at this time. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

H.R. 3325 (117th Congress)[edit]

H.R. 3325 (117th Congress) (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 consists of only WP:PRIMARY sources, and I could find no secondary ones in my WP:BEFORE search. That leads me to conclude the article's subject does not meet WP:N.

Of course, this wouldn't be an issue if we were on WikiLaw because I think the article is otherwise well written. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stumbled upon this article myself just a short bit ago and have tried to do what I can cleanup-wise, but I agree, this really isn't all that notable – just procedural stuff. Would probably support a merge to one of the many 1/6-related articles over a delete, but I agree, alone this act hasn't received major coverage. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2021 United States Capitol attack or a related article. Few readers are going to know this law by its number so few would want to look it up that way. However, some readers who are interested in the aftermath of the Capitol attack might be interested in Congress honoring the Capitol police as a result and would expect to find this information in a Capitol attack-related article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment there are no secondary sources will be fixed. There are now copious news stories about the bill and awarding it in a Rose Garden Ceremony. As the public law awards the Congressional Gold Medal, this is hugely warranted as an article. The award has been granted less than 200 times in our nation's history, which makes it notable in and of itself, even if it was not for the circumstances in which it was awarded. Esvabird (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now added secondary sources as requested. Esvabird (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourcing is not an issue; it had four non-primary sources at the time of nomination, and has six now. It's sufficiently distinct from 2021 United States Capitol attack that it deserves separate coverage; and in fact, merging it could likely lead to sacrificing worthy information on the alter of WP:UNDUE.
I agree that H.R. 3325 (117th Congress) is a lousy name, but not because of its numeric nature. Many bills/statutes have short names, whether named descriptively (e.g., the Copyright Act of 1976), after its major proponent (e.g., the Lanham Act), or to be clever or to market it (e.g., the TREAD Act or the USAPATRIOT Act); but many have either long boring summarizing names (e.g. "an Act to Protect the Commerce of the United States and Punish the Crime of Piracy" or occasionally name at all. (This one is technically named An Act to award four congressional gold medals to the United States Capitol Police and those who protected the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, but that's too long for a Wikipedia article name.) The naming of a statute has little bearing on whether the statute is notable.
However, this article is misnamed because it's named for the unenacted bill (and only as considered in the House of Representatives); because the bill was enacted into law (which is part of the reason it's notable), it should be named for the statute. It is the enacted law (Public Law 117-32) that is the notable; not the proposed bill that led to the law. (As a side benefit, naming for the law itself avoids the need for the "(117th Congress)" disambiguity; the congressional identification "117" is baked into the public law designation itself.) TJRC (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TJRC: it had four non-primary sources at the time of nomination Excuse me, but what? Which one of these sources were not primary. We have congress.gov, govinfo.gov, whitehouse.gov, c-span.org, and youtube.com (where the video is uploaded by the official White House YouTube channel). None of those qualify as anything but primary sources. Now you are saying there is six, but all I see is two: [1][2] (which were not present at the time of nomination nor could I find them in my WP:BEFORE because they don't actually mention the bill number). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TJRC May I introduce you to The Fable of the Kid Who Shifted His Ideals to Golf and Finally Became a Baseball Fan and Took the Only Known Cure Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable but I agree that an article name change is probably in order Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I'm more persuaded by the Merge arguments. Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AllegedlyHuman and Metropolitan90: Since you mentioned merging as a possibility -- please comment on the proposed end state of the merger (already up): Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Posthumous awards bill — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's how the merge would look, I wouldn't object. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs from Sesame Street[edit]

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

WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:FAN. "The songs on the list do not gain notability from happening to have been heard" on the show. AldezD (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second the above notion that setting up inclusion criteria of sorts may prune this down to a more manageable/notable list. I'd try that before deleting outright. Sergecross73 msg me 20:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and source. The list topic is notable, so each element need not be, but each should be sourced to the primary source, e.g. an episode in which each appeared. Jclemens (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, see WP:CSC for discussion of lists made up primarily of NN items. Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:FANCRUFT and no clear notability of the list in general. These are all bare mentions and the few list entries with articles are there because Sesame Street did their own take on them. Ajf773 (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just list the ones that have a link to their own articles. Makes it a valid grouping. Dream Focus 15:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Update: I created a table. Listing everything, not just the ones with their own articles, seems fine for this. This is like the article List of guest stars on Sesame Street which ended in Keep. Or perhaps list those with their own article or that were sung by a famous person who got reviewed for being on the show. Dream Focus 16:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Did the famous people singing these other songs get media coverage for appearing on the show and singing a song there? Dream Focus 15:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Clarityfiend's sourcing above. High level reliable sources document the subject of this list. The list just needs clear inclusion criteria to be developed, not deletion. Cleanup can fix the cruft issues. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that the sources I've dug up emphasize the performer first, not the song they sing. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There appears to be ample sourcing on songs in Sesame Street and thus I feel this list should be cleaned up and sourcing improved. NemesisAT (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Clarityfiend. Article needs a lot of clean-up by categorizing every song into title, performer and episode (if necessary). Other than that, it easily passes WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated above. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but clean up, as the topic is clearly notable.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miraheze[edit]

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

A7 was declined, article 100% relies on primary sources. WP:BEFORE shows nothing to verify notability. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources are from Miraheze and other primary sources. There aren't many other secondary sources online mentioning Miraheze despite it being a popular wiki hosting platform, so it is unlikely this article can be improved to Wikipedia's standards. --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 00:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I researched it and this seems like a pretty big topic, but unfortunately it hasn't been covered much by reliable sources at this point. We should make it a section of another article instead, like Wiki farm. Dunutubble (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kairaoa[edit]

Kairaoa (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 about a fictitious settlement in Nonouti. Created with another ones in 2008 from a list of places in this atoll. --Arorae (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Ths discussion page was not created with the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the article. --Finngall talk 19:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Failed verification, could not locate any sourcing beyond the typical bot-generated sites about weather, time zones, distance calculators etc. –dlthewave ☎ 17:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarakarawa[edit]

Tarakarawa (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 about a fictitious settlement in Nonouti. Created with another ones in 2008 from a list of places in this atoll. --Arorae (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Ths discussion page was not created with the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the article. --Finngall talk 19:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Failed verification, could not locate any sourcing beyond the typical bot-generated sites about weather, time zones, distance calculators etc. –dlthewave ☎ 17:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umauma[edit]

Umauma (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 about a fictitious settlement in Nonouti. Created with another ones in 2008 from a list of places in this atoll. --Arorae (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Ths discussion page was not created with the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the article. --Finngall talk 19:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Google and Google Maps do not indicate the presence of these places on Nonouti. I'm not going to comment on all ten of these, they should have been bundled. Arorae, I can tell this is mass-produced junk, but you can clarify in what way they are really fictitious? Reywas92Talk 19:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92:. I have no idea from which list those places where found and why their creator did a so bad work in 2008. But there is no such village or settlement in Nonouti. Uma means church in Gilbertese language, and Umauma is Church-Church. Non sense only.--Arorae (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the same goes for other connected settlements in Afd procces. I agree that google search does not back up all those settlements.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Failed verification, could not locate any sourcing beyond the typical bot-generated sites about weather, time zones, distance calculators etc. –dlthewave ☎ 17:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nanibaba[edit]

Nanibaba (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 about a fictitious settlement in Nonouti. Created with another ones in 2008 from a list of places in this atoll. --Arorae (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Ths discussion page was not created with the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the article. --Finngall talk 19:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Failed verification, could not locate any sourcing beyond the typical bot-generated sites about weather, time zones, distance calculators etc. –dlthewave ☎ 17:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing visible at the coordinates provided and I can't find any information on this settlement through an internet search. No references in the article as of writing. NemesisAT (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While it seems clear this isn't a fictitious location, no evidence has been presented that this topic meets WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tetake[edit]

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

Tetake is not a village or settlement in Nonouti. This article was created in 2008 appears to be fictitious. --Arorae (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Ths discussion page was not created with the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the article. --Finngall talk 19:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain:: still some confusion between a real settlement (like a small village) and a private residence...--Arorae (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
te taake (also written te take) is a tropical bird with red feathers.--Arorae (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The place mentioned above could also be a sort of neighborhood or street name, but I see no basis to keep as a distinct and notable community. Reywas92Talk 15:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if this is indeed a settlement, it would fall under populated places without legal recognition which need to meet GNG per WP:GEOLAND #2. Simply providing evidence that it exists or that people have lived there is insufficient. –dlthewave ☎ 17:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kunnamangalam Police station[edit]

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

Speedy was removed by an editor, PROD and PROD endorsement were declined by an admin another editor, I'm talking this to AFD, because I believe there is a legitimate discussion that needs to take place regarding this article to whether it should be kept or not. It was originally tagged as a copyright violation, and then eventually all of the alleged copied content was removed, however, this article still has many problems. It still looks like an advertisement or news article and I genuinely don't think this regular police station justifies its own article on Wikipedia, and it would make better sense if it was a section within an existing relevant article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aristopharma Ltd.[edit]

Aristopharma Ltd. (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 is currently based on sources that are not sufficient to demonstrate notability: two are non-independent, one hardly amounts to significant coverage. In my search, I've not been able to find any significant, independent coverage. The subject appears to be non-notable per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Metrojet Flight 9268#Aircraft. There is clear consensus to not keep the article. What little extra content there was I've added to the Metrojet article. I've also left a redirect just based on this event being noted in specialist industry sources. Seddon talk 22:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East Airlines Flight 304[edit]

Middle East Airlines Flight 304 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable aviation incident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This aviation accident has a rather high value towards Metrojet Flight 9268. Readers may as well be interested in reading it. Username006 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Username006, a merge would not be appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is wrong speculation (Speculation about causes happens after almost every disaster today. Go check this article for some of it surrounding something that happened about 60 miles from my home) after a disaster happens. Here is an example[4] from a 2001 plane crash. That was the basis for a very wrong WP article that tried to blame a crash on cellphones when the accident report said no. The article even got good article status with this shameful disinformation and a lie[5] about a separate investigation[6]. This was a minor incident and the news media speculation was dead wrong. Why are we giving voice to it?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment I say the whole thing connecting to Metrojet should be removed per WP:UNDUE which reads 'If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.' The accident reports on Metroject are quite clear why it crashed and this was I wrong above, wrong speculation by the media....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: This was not a minority. A major theory of the Metrojet crash was a possible way if the improper tail strike repair may have weakened the Airbus. It also did come on Mayday disasters in one short episode. In every documentary I have seen on Metrojet Flight 9268, they have mentioned this Left, Right and Center. The cellphone accident had nothing to do with another article and could easily be merged with Crossair Flight 498 as there was not much to say about. However, in the page of Flight 9268, I can't exactly see much information about the tailstrike accident. Here, as said by @Martinevans123:, you can't exactly merge the two topics together. The only way to give information is by creating a separate page. Username006 (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Whether a tail strike played any part in the later loss of the aircraft is a matter for the Metrojet Flight 9268 article, but a stand-alone article on what is essentially a non-event, from an encyclopedic point of view, does not make any sense. The Aircraft section − a big chunk of this article − is also largely a duplicate of the one in the Metrojet article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deeday-UK: I mean, it's the same aircraft. So isnt it expected to be similiar? Username006 (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the FSB said they found traces of explosive, but that was never independently verified? Also the article says this (emphasis added): "In March 2020 an Egyptian appeals court ruled the crash was not an act of terrorism, and it dismissed lawsuits against government officials, Metrojet and Ingosstrakh." As far as I know, that is still the legal position. So if it was not caused by a bomb, what was it caused by? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The important elements of this incident are included in the Metrojet Flight 9268 article. No notability for a stand-alone article about a very minor event that is unlikely to have had anything to do with the later crash of the aircraft. (Note that the Metrojet article's statement that the Egyptian appeals court had ruled that the crash was not an act of terrorism is inaccurate. The court actually said that the investigation into the crash wasn't complete, so it was not possible for the victims to sue the airliner for allowing a bomb aboard the aircraft, and that there was no official determination that the passengers on that aircraft had died until the report was complete.). RecycledPixels (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Metrojet Flight 9268 Non-notable incident, and there is precedent on not having separate articles for tailstrike incidents on planes that eventually crash (Talk:Japan Airlines Flight 123#Merger_discussion). Jumpytoo Talk 21:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a merge does not seem to work and there is little information about the tailstrike incident unlike the one in Japan Airlines Flight 123. That's why a separate page is required. There are exceptions to it. It would be rather appropriate if this is included separately. Username006 (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

".. there is precedent on not having separate articles." Not sure I understand that. There are some articles which are unique. It could be argued that all articles are unique. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Metrojet Flight 9268 per Jumpytoo, Deeday-UK and RecycledPixels. This incident is only notable in the context of the Metrojet crash. It would barely even rate a single paragraph on page 6 of a typical newspaper otherwise. Carguychris (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is very little going on in this article and it is unlikely to be able to be expanded anymore than its current state. It certainly currently does not meet WP:GNG, of the four references given two are simple descriptions of the incident, one seems irrelevant and the last is from a source not generally considered relaible. There is nothing to suggest any continuing notability. If, and it is a big if, there is interest in this incident because of the subsequent bombing (?) of the aircraft years later, then that detail can and should be dealt with in the later article. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Metrojet Flight 9268, from which it derives its scant glimmer of importance. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 00:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Redirecting doesn't make sense, because the target article (the Metrojet crash one) will not naturally contain any reference to Middle East Airlines Flight 304 (although it will of course mention the core information about that flight, i.e. the tail strike event). Given the paucity of sources about Flight 304, readers are very unlikely to have even heard about it, let alone search for it here, which makes the redirect pointless. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was a conspiracy about Metrojet Flight 9268 as you can clearly see in the page itself. Not sure if we should keep it as it is not that notable but there isn't that much info about it on the Metrojet page either so that kind of evens it out. KlientNo.1 (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW keep, for lack of a rationale based in either policy or reality for deletion of this article. The subject is clearly notable, and AfD is not the place to litigate content disputes. BD2412 T 03:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter A. McCullough[edit]

Peter A. McCullough (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 a procedural nomination on behalf of an editor who is unable to currently post. With permission, their rationale has been copied verbatim from ticket:2021081510003236:

I nominate the Wikipedia page for Peter A. McCullough, American Cardiologist, to be deleted because I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and that I want the article to be deleted. Wikipedia has published this page on Dr. Peter A. McCullough without his approval. By this act, Wikipedia on Dr. McCullough has published 1) false statements purporting to be facts; 2) statements to third persons with this Wikipedia page; 3) committed fault amounting to negligence; and 4) damages to Dr. Peter A. McCullough who is the subject of the statement page.

In other words, this is a BLPREQUESTDELETE situation. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: no valid deletion rationale given. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I am necessarily advocating for them, but he does say that he feels he is a non-notable individual. Primefac (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. Consider my !vote amended to "no reasonable deletion rational given". As KidAd says, McCullough definitely meets GNG. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Speedy Keep Based on a review of the sources, it appears that McCullough meets WP:GNG. It also seems like the nomination rationale is written like a a veiled legal threat. KidAd • SPEAK 18:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsurprising, since Pmccull975 (talk · contribs) is currently blocked for making legal threats. - MrOllie (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia articles can be created for anyone without consent as long as they're notable and there's independent, reliable sources regarding them. As for his misinformation, it's stated in the article and complies with WP:NPOV. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject of the article most certainly meets notability criteria, and I do not see any breaches of the WP:BLP or WP:NPOV policies (at least none that could not be fixed through editing and would warrant deletion). The thinly-veiled legal threat is also disconcerting. --Kinu t/c 18:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article meets every aspect of WP:GNG: the subject has received significant coverage, the subject is notable, and the sources used are reliable, verifiable, and independent of the subject. That the subject apparently doesn't like reliably-sourced facts about their public activities does not signify with respect to Wikipedia policy. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per above. Notability can be seen.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 21:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that he is notable. It might be worthwhile to ask him what exactly in the article he thinks is false. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Eastmain, I think this should answer your question. Primefac (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep under criterion 2 (editor nominating blocked for posting the same legal threat and for having previously disrupted the page in question); and also per WP:SNOW, per the above, since it is beyond doubt that this person is indeed notable (this suggests criterion 3 as well)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:SNOW and because... that's... not how Wikipedia works. Don't want your Wikipedia biography to say you said controversial things? Don't say controversial things. I don't even think we could justify deletion under WP:BLP1E given the multiple things he's said that have received coverage. St★lwart111 01:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Dr. McCullough is reading this, I would like to direct him here. KidAd • SPEAK 01:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Stalwart111 said, that's not how Wikipedia works. XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article states "misinformation". Let readers decide for themselves. If this is removed, it is a disservice to those who are able to think critically and an assault on freedom of speech. I suggest that the article be edited to be a more balanced discussion rather than a biased piece of propaganda. He is respected by many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:a420:e02::2 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep as "I regard myself as non-notable..." makes this completely dead-on-arrival. The subject's personal whims do not dictate encyclopedia policy. Zaathras (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exploitation colonialism[edit]

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

Reason Mirkyton (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore this AFD notice, I didn't understand the process of merging.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 AFC Eskilstuna. Appropriately sourced content should be merged into the target article then redirected to it as per consensus. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Athletic FC[edit]

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

Never played in the cup or higher than the Swedish fifth tier, so fails our soccer guidelines. It is a part of AFC Eskilstuna's history, though. Geschichte (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sockpuppet ST47 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trupti Rajput[edit]

Trupti Rajput (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 Indian actress, fails WP:NACTOR. The available references are not significant also fails WP:GNG DMySon (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. No notable films to meet NACTOR and lacks coverage for GNG. Ab207 (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify The page creator just created this article and moved it into Draft space. I moved it back to main space during this AFD discussion but I think the best solution is to allow the editor to work on this article as a Draft since I think they were in the process of developing it when it was tagged for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Please move it to Draft back because it is not ready to be in Mainspace. I will work on it and move to Mainspace once its done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amjad4life (talk • contribs)
  • Drafity, Speedy based on the creator's request. A long discussion seems unnecessary rn. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Moved to draft. ( Draft:Maaligai ) Seddon talk 23:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maaligai[edit]

Maaligai (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:NFILM and, in particular, WP:NFF. I find no sources that say that principal photography has begun, and there is almost no coverage of it at all – certainly nothing to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. bonadea contributions talk 14:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It can always be recreated if a film actually develops. BD2412 T 15:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. It is WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone mainspace article. Incubation in draft space would be an option to save what has been created until there is more coverage, if that happens. BOVINEBOY2008 01:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per Bovineboy Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoophoria[edit]

Zoophoria (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 propose that Zoophoria should be deleted primarily because after searching I could not find Reliable Sources.

I could certainly find nothing that would justify the level of detail the page is written in. After searching I did find two Dice Tower video reviews (albeit by different people). The first of these was very helpful in giving an overview of the game play but disclosed that it was a paid for review.[7] The second was a mildly positive review, though it did criticize the art style and said that the game dragged.[8] Both of these videos featured in the failed Kickstarter campaign. That's it. Everything else seems to link back to either the game designer or Wikipedia.

It does not do terribly well on notability given the above comments. There is a BGG page but there is absolutely no activity there. The kickstarter campaign failed. It was not picked up by a publisher other than the self-publishing website Gamecrafter.

I did wonder if there was an element of self-promotion. However I could find no obvious evidence of that since the failed kickstarter campaign predates the Wikipedia page by about two years. Slimy asparagus (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Slimy asparagus (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*delete I put some work into nominating this for deletion, and I can't see it surviving on reliable sources grounds alone.Slimy asparagus (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This AfD was not transcluded to the log, I have done that. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 14:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am finding no coverage or reviews on this board game in reliable sources at all. According to Board Game Geek, the game was self-published, and I can't even find any listings for the game to be bought or sold anywhere. I did find a failed Kickstarter for the game, though. With all of this, combined with the fact that this article was created by an WP:SPA right around the time the game is said to have been released, leads me to believe that this was nothing more than an attempt to promote what wound up being a failed, self-published product that gained no coverage or notability at all. Rorshacma (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the timing. The Kickstarter was in 2014. The article was created in 2016. Slimy asparagus (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Kickstarter failed in 2014, but the actual game wound up being self-published in the latter half of 2015, according to its page on the Game Crafter website that was ultimately used to self-publish. Regardless, though, its kind of a moot point given how no coverage of the game exists either way. Rorshacma (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah I missed that. Did you find the two Dice Tower reviews? One was paid for. Slimy asparagus (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. What is significant is either not reliable or not independent and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G12; Unambiguous copyright infringement ~TNT (she/they • talk) 23:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London On Foot[edit]

London On Foot (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 see that the creator has done a lot of work but, unfortunately, this article does not belong here. It is either original research, or, if not original research, likely to be a copyvio due to the detailed nature of the instructions. May belong on WikiVoyage. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL Reywas92Talk 15:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm that I've copied and pasted this from my YouTube channel, as all the walks were created by myself.
    Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTfDbwDlWJp2nU1xPMGj6sA/ Mjvdz98 (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case Speedy delete because your videos suggest you claim copyright on this content. Why did you think it was a good idea to spam the encyclopedia with your own travel guides??????? Seriously, you appear to have been here a couple years, do you see anything else like this here??? Reywas92Talk 16:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Divorce[edit]

Hollywood Divorce (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:NSONG; been in CAT:NN hence the nomination. – DarkGlow • 19:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented by Astig. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holland (band)[edit]

Holland (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)

Do not appear to satisfy WP:NBAND. Minor mentions in a couple of sources, but no significant coverage. No charting songs or albums. – DarkGlow • 19:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think the redirect suggested by the previous voter is necessary. For this band, since they were active in the 1980s it's possible they were covered in old hard copy publications, but I can find nothing via a Google Books search. They are discussed sometimes by 80s metal fans in social media, but otherwise they are only ever mentioned as an early endeavor for the one member who was in a different notable band later. There's just not enough on this band to justify an article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bahujan Kranti Morcha[edit]

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

Bahujan Kranti Morcha

Organization which has no references and does not establish organizational notability. Article was already moved to draft space once, and has been moved back to article space, so that another move to draft space would be move warring. This stub does not speak for itself, and neither do its references (because they aren't there). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per nom. unreferenced and little indication of notability; 'basic' search reveals little if any, SIGCOV. In addition to everything noted by Robert, has already been deleted as CSD A7 in April 2021; Deletion log seen here. Eagleash (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, created by a seemingly blocked editor. Eagleash (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Stephens (musician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jack Stephens (musician) (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 session musician/sound engineer, fails WP:MUSICBIO, all sources are trivial, simple credit lists, or unrelated to the subject. Question-mark promotional, subject is barely mentioned in any of the articles about bands he has been in. Was previously nominated by User:Instawisdom in January 2012 but closed with no comments. No independent sources have emerged since then. Jdcooper (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jdcooper (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that he is a member of a late-period nostalgia version of EMF, having joined about 20 years after their last album. Joining that operation is not particularly notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unfortunately this process is tough for this type of journeyman musician, who has played for/with a whole bunch of notable bands but has never received reliable music media coverage in his own right, and is only ever briefly mentioned as present for whatever band he's with that week. Not enough for a standalone article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Triffids discography. ✗plicit 13:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Brabham (album)[edit]

Jack Brabham (album) (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:NALBUM; been in CAT:NN for ten years, hence the nomination. – DarkGlow • 19:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Lee Rock[edit]

Derek Lee Rock (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 satisfy WP:BASIC. – DarkGlow • 19:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We need way more sourcing than this to show a drummer is notable enough seperate from their band to justify an article on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He was in two notable bands, which causes a problem because there is no perfect destination for a redirect. Even so, this individual article adds non-notable biographical tidbits and is dependent on the achievements of each band which are already covered at their articles. He has done nothing notable outside of either of them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:Music says "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Being in two notable bands would meet this imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the first sentence of that guideline states that the person may be notable if any of the following conditions are met. This musician just barely meets that criterion but he has nothing for any of the others because he has never done anything notable beyond performing with those two bands. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520: Musicians don't have to meet every criterion, only "at least one of the following criteria" according to the guideline. He's not the most notable musician on Wikipedia, but notable enough to meet guidelines. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can agree to disagree on whether being in two bands is enough, but I absolutely did not say that this guy has to meet every criterion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well how many criterions do you think he has to meet? I figured one was enough because that's the established guideline. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also thinking about the quality of the encyclopedia. What do we learn from an article on Derek Lee Rock that has reliable and verifiable sources? He was in Suburban Legends which we already know from their article, he was in Melee which we already know from their article, he does some other things that have received no notice, and he twirls his sticks while playing. I repeat that the notability guideline says that a person may be notable if any of those criteria are met. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rather than a simple rote check off of criteria, I'm onboard with the may be notable argument above from DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS), especially when one considers one of the bands he was with, Suburban Legends, was a rotating door of musicians to fill the shift work needs for multiple daily shows at a theme park. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Threshold (band). Eddie891 Talk Work 14:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McDermott[edit]

Andrew McDermott (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 appear to satisfy WP:BASIC. Been in CAT:NN for ten years, hence the nomination. – DarkGlow • 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Threshold (band). He was with several bands, but Threshold is the only one deemed notable enough for an article here. (One of the others was redirected.) Threshold is the only band for which his achievements received any coverage, including reports about his unfortunate early death. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Obituary mentions of Threshold (band) point to that being the proper place, as there are no sources to indicate individual notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PriceOye[edit]

PriceOye (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 NCORP. Lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The sources I could find were either routine fundraising reports (mere six-figure rounds, by the way) or non-independent promotional articles like this one. M4DU7 (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Art into Acres[edit]

Art into Acres (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 articles is entirely composed of name dropping of people who have contributed to the project. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references are almost entirely about donors, not the project itself. No demonstration of notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry L. Mills[edit]

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

Declined CSD WP:G11. I am not finding any WP:GNG sources about this person. There are sources that quote this person, but that doesn't establish notability. Aside from GNG (and WP:NBIO), I don't see evidence that their publications meet WP:NAUTHOR notability. Levivich 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Levivich 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Levivich 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Levivich 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coolperson177 (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a few passing quotes, burried in the 8th paragraph or so in articles, do not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – there doesn't seem to be anything that would contribute toward GNG notability: being quoted in the press doesn't provide significant coverage, nor does a single-sentence trivial mention. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seán Yap Sei-Been Devlin[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not making or properly sourcing a strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE.
Nine of the twelve footnotes in the article are tying his notability to his participation in creating an election advocacy website in 2011 -- but across the board, those nine footnotes all either fail to mention Seán Yap Sei-Been Devlin at all, or glancingly mention his name in the process of not being about him, which means absolutely none of them are helping to establish his notability at all. Then there's a citation to Upworthy, a clickbait site that isn't a reliable or notability-supporting source, and a citation to a Tyee article that isn't about him, but just features a few soundbites by him about a subject other than himself, so neither of those are helping either.
A few additional sources that I've already removed included several IMDb profiles for other people's films that he purportedly worked on; a tourist information page that verified the existence of the Roskilde Festival while completely failing to verify the claim that his short film was commissioned by it; and a news article that verified the existence of Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm while completely failing to verify the claim that Devlin had anything to do with it. So none of those hits were helping either.
That leaves just one citation in the article that is actually about Devlin for the purposes of helping to establish his notability, but one good source isn't enough all by itself -- and his strongest actual notability claim, that he won a Best Emerging Director award at a film festival, is not sourced at all. (And while I could technically source that, given that I was the person who wrote our article about the film he won it for in the first place, the advertorialism and bad sourcing here are otherwise too egregious to just plop down one more footnote and walk away from it.)
Also, the article was created by an WP:SPA with no history of contributing to Wikipedia on any other topic, and thus may be an WP:AUTOBIO or some form of WP:COI paid editing.
So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source an article about Devlin properly, but in this form it's a candidate for the blow it up and start over treatment at best. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: Creator has since reference bombed the article further by adding many more sources that weren't present in the article at the time of nomination; however, they're still all either glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage that isn't about him, or just plain don't help to build notability since they're not about him doing notable or SNG-worthy things. Plus the tone is still too advertorialized to stand without significant rewriting even if the sources were good enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Man, is the evidence here pretty damning. The straight.com article plus the coverage of a website he founded does weaken my Delete !vote a lot, but not so much so to vote Keep. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Per nominator. Article indeed is not properly sourced, not quite in encyclopedic tone, especially for standards on English Wikipedia in 2021. I could be OK with redirect to When the Storm Fades, article on film has been created couple years ago by experienced editor and has far more "what links here" than article on director. Content connected to this featured film seems be much more notable than anything else mentioned in the article (mostly trivia news stuff like arrests, activism etc.). In fact I would have bit more tendence to keep redirect than delte whole article because of biography could have eventually potential to be notable in far future and content of the article would be saved in "view history". Dawid2009 (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we delete the article, an administrator will still have the power to restore it if there's ever any future need to recover the deleted content. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moovly[edit]

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

Promotional article, substantially written by SPA. No evidence of notability under WP:CORP. A WP:BEFORE turns up only press releases, a small amount of churnalism and no independent RS coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. PROD removed by a new SPA that added extensive text reading like advertising copy. David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with nom. A simple Google search doesn't turn up any significant sources, besides thinly disguised promotional articles such as this in Macworld. [[15]] Plus, FWIW, it's nearly an orphan, and one of the only sources is now a dead link. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please take this opportunity to expand the article though. The article is very threadbare and could easily find itself here again. Seddon talk 23:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chemplast Cricket Ground[edit]

Chemplast Cricket Ground (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 due lack of WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. Particularly the article includes three references, each of which is very basic statistical data (e.g., date of founding and matches played there) or a one-sentence mention. Per WP:NBUILDING, "The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability".

My WP:BEFORE search turned up only a brief additional mention in the Deccan Chronicle (a short paragraph containing no actual detail about the grounds beyond the year they were founded). A "citations needed" template has been on the page since 2016 with none further added. Looking at the grounds objectively, judging by the photos of it that are available online, they do not even have viewing stands but only a medium-sized pavilion such as many local non-notable cricketing grounds have, so it seems unlikely that there will be much in the way of significant coverage of the grounds per se given the lack of facillities for anyone to visit the grounds as a spectator.

Finally, the Tamil Nadu cricket team are not based there - they've used the M. A. Chidambaram Stadium since 1916 - so the EPSNCricinfo data used in the infobox is obviously wrong. FOARP (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it has been used by Tamil Nadu, even if it's not their main ground: [16]. And there are some sources related to it being renamed: [17], [18], but would need to do a more thorough search for most old and new name before voting. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph - Happy to withdraw the AFD so long as we're sure those two articles on the renaming aren't flap-copy/PR. FOARP (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The ground has played host to Women's ODIs, in addition to first-class and List A matches. Passes the cricket projects inclusion guidelines for cricket grounds. StickyWicket (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Contrary to what the AfD creator says above, it is one of the grounds where Tamil Nadu plays their home matches. It has hosted 8 first class matches
  • 8th November 2000 Ranji Trophy 2000/01 South Zone Tamil Nadu v Karnataka f45348
  • 10th March 2001 Ranji Trophy 2000/01 Pre-Quarter-Final Tamil Nadu v Delhi f45717
  • 10th December 2001 Ranji Trophy 2001/02 South Zone Tamil Nadu v Hyderabad f46207
  • 25th December 2001 Ranji Trophy 2001/02 South Zone Tamil Nadu v Kerala f46232
  • 24th November 2010 Ranji Trophy 2010/11 Elite Group A Tamil Nadu v Railways f52757
  • 22nd December 2012 Ranji Trophy 2012/13 Group B Tamil Nadu v Uttar Pradesh f54445
  • 21st November 2016 Ranji Trophy 2016/17 Group B Assam v Maharashtra f57498

This is in addition to eight Women's ODI matches. Tintin 16:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as it has been used by Tamil Nadu, and it has hosted major matches.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Sun Ra Arkestra. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luqman Ali[edit]

Luqman 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)

Fails WP:NMUSIC ----Rdp060707|talk 10:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Sun Ra Arkestra. He is not mentioned at that article, but that is a problem over there that can be solved through the editing process. Mr. Ali was a documented member of that notable jazz ensemble but never received much notice for any additional activities. Most of his individual coverage is in the form of obituaries, including one very informative obituary here: [19], but that still does not add up to individual notability outside the group. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sun Ra: After this AfD began, I added a few references to this article. The subject's biography of intermittent involvement in both the Sun Ra Arkestra and the Nation of Islam, his time in Africa, etc., could make an interesting case study, but I don't see the references now in the article or the brief mentions of him in Szwed's "Space is the Place" as sufficient to demonstrate WP:MUSICBIO notability. I differ slightly from Doomsdayer520 above, in that I suggest the Sun Ra article, where the subject is mentioned, as a redirect target. One day, someone may take the time to distinguish the two articles, particularly the list of musicians (which includes some involved in the Arkestra only after Sun Ra's death). AllyD (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Sun Ra Arkestra. The significance of Lugman Ali has to do with his work with the band, so that seems to be the appropriate redirect target. As mentioned by Doomsdayer520, his name can be added to the article along with any other past members. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basilico's[edit]

Basilico's (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 restaurant's only claim to notability is recent media coverage about its COVID stance. This media coverage only covers the COVID stance and nothing about the actual restaurant. As such I do not feel it passes notability guidelines. Osarius 10:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Osarius 10:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Osarius 10:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Osarius 10:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. How did this ever make the front page? WCMemail 11:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, how? My thoughts exactly!! 😯😯😯 Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was concerned about notability as well when I saw the DYK. The article currently cites two pre-covid reviews ([20], [21]), but both are from local-ish newspapers. I think this probably fails WP:NOTNEWS and, by analogy although it's not about a person, WP:ONEEVENT, but those two reviews are something. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously speaking, I did not create this article just for the lulz, but I considered that the COVID-era coverage has been enduring (across a one year range) and the PRE-COVID sources seemed adequate enough (disregarding any BIAS against "local" sources—does it matter so long as they are RS?) to get it to pass GNG, however barely. The nom seems to suggest that the COVID-era coverage is fleeting/trivial but I'd argue otherwise. While the focus no doubt is on Tony's interesting business tactics, there is enough detail on the restaurant itself--see the citations! And again, it's not a one-day Buzzfeed thing but sustained enduring coverage over the past year or so. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[At the very least, "NOTHING" about the restaurant itself is a stretch. See the citations!!] inre: "This media coverage only covers the COVID stance and nothing about the actual restaurant." Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A certain distinguished administrator declined to speedy delete this (yes, this has earned the holy trifecta of deletion noma) and, if I may quote him without his consent, commented that it was "well written". And don't forget the good folk at Did You Know? who made its Main Page appearance a reality. Consider all that! 🤣 Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A sputtering of recent news due to the nutty owners' policy, but that doesn't exactly make the restaurant as a dining establishment notable. I would sort of compare this to Shooters Grill (Lauren_Boebert#Small_business_ownership) though she goes beyond the restaurant of course. Generic old routine local reviews fall under WP:AUD and don't establish notability. Reywas92Talk 15:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you surmising this based on a cursory glance at some of the sources cited, or did you actually examine each and every one? I disagree with your characterisation (sputtering, generic old routine...) Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom - this is an easy one. It fails WP:SIGCOV (passes WP:SUSTAINED since it's been mentioned time and again in the news, but only about their antimasking and antivaxxing views). The actual part about the restaurant is small at best and the article is clearly WP:POV in its balance of information presented with most of it being about their COVID related behavior (even if I very much disagree with their views).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 11:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

7 (O.S.T.R. album)[edit]

7 (O.S.T.R. album) (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:NMUSIC. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suppose for a Polish artist the Fryderyk is what the Mercury is for British artists. Can you supply a reliable source for this? --Muhandes (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Muhandes, The link above is to the official page (rotted, but IArchived). I'd think it is reliable? However, I can't comment on the importance on Fryderyk vs Mercury, I am really not very familiar with music scene in general. I think Fryderyks are quite important; the have an article here which generally is a good sign (and I did hear about them in few other contexts while working on some other articles here and there). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: That can do, as well as the sources mentioned by Muhandes. SBKSPP (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Per WP:NALBUM: a recording may be notable if [t]he recording has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. As noted above (ref), the album was nominated for a Fryderyk, which in Poland seems to be as major as a Grammis is in Sweden. Presumably, more coverage could be found if we could cross the language and time barriers. --Muhandes (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It also charted #2 per Billboard (ref, also ref). --Muhandes (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

La Torre Golf Resort[edit]

La Torre Golf Resort (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 sole claim to notability is that it hosted the Davis Cup semifinals in 2009, which isn't enough and a BEFORE identifies no sourcing to establish notability per WP:ORG or the GNG. Like the other Polaris World properties, this article has been prone to COI/PAID editing, and when that is stripped away, there's not much left. Star Mississippi 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom on both articles. A Google search doesn't turn up any significant coverage of the properties. There are numerous Jack Nicklaus-designed golf courses that are not necessarily independently notable. These properties are listed at List of golf courses designed by Jack Nicklaus, so there's still a record of them somewhere, and they'll be redlinked to encourage article recreation if they ever get more media coverage. The developer Polaris World went bankrupt, and DoubleTree operates these now, but there's nowhere appropriate to merge the content. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: El Valle Golf Resort was previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrews Breed[edit]

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

Local politician who fails WP:NPOL. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas P. Richardson, at the time this was first created in 2009 our notability rule was that mayors were "inherently" notable if the city they were mayor of had ever cracked 50K in population. That standard was deprecated several years ago, however: mayors are no longer "inherently" notable regardless of the city's size, but instead you must demonstrate their notability by actually writing and sourcing a substantive article that dives deeply into their political impact. Specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. In 2021, a mayor of a place much smaller than 50K can be kept if a genuinely substantial article can be written (see e.g. Marie Curtis), and a mayor of a place much larger than 50K can be deleted if it essentially just says "Andrews Breed was a mayor who existed, the end." Bearcat (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mayor of Lynn, Massachusetts. Articles about mayors must be more comprehensive than "they served as mayor (of municipality) from X to X. --Enos733 (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tell Me Everything[edit]

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

Has one review on Allmusic, but has no other coverage. Per WP:NALBUM, albums need to be covered in multiple published works. No charting or certifications either. – DarkGlow • 08:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 08:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 08:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably keep. In the music press, I really only know the metal and the punk press, but this seems like a review on a reliable site, and this is a review in the general press. There could well be more reviews in the general Dutch press. Geschichte (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Two of the sources in the article, including the ones indicated by Geschichte, seem reliable. I also found some reliable sources which talk about the album, [22], [23] and [24]. It's also covered in a magazine, in which I don't have an access to. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable album by a notable artist.JeepersClub (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Geschichte and Astig. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arnav Srivastav[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since Dec 2017. Appears to fail WP:NBIO - little to no coverage from independent sources. KH-1 (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without further ado. Obvious PR pushing page for an entirely non-notable person. Uncited page. Unknown works. Spurious reference to Beijing Olympics. Jeez, this is a no-brainer.--Trickipaedia (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wohnkultur[edit]

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

Totally unreferenced. Does not meet WP:NFILM. nirmal (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 11 minute short film about 1950s era interior design. [25] Couldn't find anything useful to write a proper article, only basic list information. —Kusma (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Dawson[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E. The article claims he committed a shooting inside the United States Capitol, but its sole source no longer works. The timeline of violent and dangerous incidents at the U.S. Capitol article clarifies this, saying this was a minor security incident and officer-involved shooting. Nothing about this individual suggests he needs an article of his own. Love of Corey (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One-event crime biography (arrest,[26][27] trial and sentencing[28][29]). Sentenced to 11 months imprisonment for firing a BB gun inside the Capitol trying to enter the Capitol with a BB gun, pointing it at police and getting shot. Only gets occasional, trivial RS mentions when other incidents happen at the Capitol. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. No claim to lasting notability or sustained coverage. KidAd • SPEAK 16:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:BLP1E as no sustained coverage. The 11 month sentence he received indicates the minor level of the crime, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons above. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Surachit (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Physicians for Patient Protection[edit]

Physicians for Patient Protection (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 organization, that, in my estimation, fails WP:NORG. Only incidental mentions in reliable news sources, yet far fewer medical journal sources than I'd expect for an organization with so many physicians. As there is no in-depth coverage of the organization in reliable sources, I propose the article be deleted. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 06:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 06:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 06:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - but I'll note one thing; this is an advocacy organisation, not a medical research organisation. They are unlikely to appear in medical journals (regardless of their membership) as they don't conduct research or public results. They are essentially a lobby group, and in this case, one that would seem to fail our inclusion criteria. St★lwart111 06:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stalwart111: Thanks for the note. I forgot to mention it the original post, but the reason that I did not attempt a WP:PROD first is that there seems to be a quite active on-wiki battle concerning this organization, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § Physicians for Patient Protection; I expected PROD to be a waste of time as any of the COIN-listed editors are likely to remove the tag. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 06:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. St★lwart111 06:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am just not seeing the coverage needed to meet WP:NORG or to treat this organisation in a neutral way. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep (or possibly Merge with an article on the broader topic) with the caveat that this article will need some MAJOR revision for neutrality and likely a high level of page protection if it is kept. They appear to have received significant coverage in several large newspapers, like Chicago Tribune, the Boston Globe, Times of San Diego. If WP:NORG isn't met, I think it should be merged and redirected into an article on the issues and controversies around expanded autonomy for RNs and PAs. The article is terrible, yes, but I think the organization warrants coverage. Niftysquirrel (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found those too, but the first name-checks the organisation in relation to something else (and it is among a dozen other such organisations quoted in the article), the second is behind a paywall so is difficult to assess (though not invalid, but it doesn't seem to be about the organisation), and the third name-checks the organisation in a single sentence and then moves on to quoting an entirely different organisation. Not sure any of those could be considered "significant coverage". St★lwart111 01:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep the problem here is that someone has stuffed this article to the gills with sources written by the founder, Rebekah Bernard. Take those away, and cut the article to a stub or start class article on what it does, who founded it and when, and what they have done. Source that with the many, many press mentions available. The depth of coverage is not terrific, but you have to admit that they have made a name for themselves and appear very, very frequently in the news. I also saw a couple of GBooks sources. It would seem to meet WP:NPROFIT, expecially the criteria statement there that "No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization." I was independently reading about them this morning in the Washington Post; they are a known thing with enough decent coverage for us to keep it. --- Possibly ☎ 02:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed some of the bloat, but there is lots more trimming to do. --- Possibly ☎ 02:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Possibly: I disagree, primarily because there are not even enough sources with the required depth of coverage to write a good stub, much less a good full article. Associated physicians are often quoted by the media, yes, but the depth of coverage is severely lacking. This could very easily just be a case of WP:TOOSOON, the organization has only existed since 2018 after all. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 02:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ReasonAndScience: It is preposterous to call PPP an "educational institution". That part of the text clearly refers to universities and other schools. Regardless, even WP:NGO requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization, which PPP does not have. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 13:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endrid Bookling[edit]

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

Biography of a medieval courtier that appears to be constructed out of passing mentions in a single text. I can’t find anything else online about him though there may be other sources. I don’t think the existing sourcing is sufficient to support a stand-alone biography even of such an ancient figure. Mccapra (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Generally we give a lot of leeway here with regards to pre-modern history; however, besides the one very minor sentence in the Rolls Series source, literally nothing else seems to exist. "Bookling" is likely an anglicized version of his original surname, so I searched using similar surnames (including Bokling, Bøkling, etc.), but similarly none returned any sources. This cited volume of the Rolls Series is derived from the Saga of Haakon Haakonarson, so I'll poke around the original material to see if I can find any mention, but at the moment I'm leaning delete. Curbon7 (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing I'm seeing is that Endrid may also be a misspelling. Pg 33 in the Rolls Series source shows his name as Eindrid, (in Old Norse, Eindriði).This is a stark difference from Endrid, whose Old Norse derivision is Æinriði, apparantly. Curbon7 (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok I finally figured out his non-anglicized name thanks to the appendix of the Rolls Series source. His name in Old Norse is "Eindriði Bækill", and the appendix describes him as a steward. Curbon7 (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to Curbon there are a lot of spelling inconsistencies in the book but Endrid Bookling and Eindrid Bookling are the same person. --Tgec17 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok so my final findings more or less. The only additional source I could find using his Norse name was from the a modern analysis of the works of Snorri Sturluson, a contemporary historian. This source (of which I found two slightly different translations: [30] [31]) describes Bækill as alive in 1270 and having delivered the Járnsíða, the Icelandic law-code written by King Magnus VI of Norway, to the Icelandic Althing (parliament). This source explicitly states this is the same Bækill that served King Haakon IV, meaning it's the same Bækill that appears in the Rolls Series source. With this in mind, my final !vote decision will be either Keep or merge. Curbon7 (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it highly questionable that he could have been alive in 1270 as he would have had to have been around 90-100 years old. Not unheard of for the time but very unlikely. --Tgec17 (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tgec17, Right? That's the weird thing; the only alternatives are he's younger than we think he is, but even if he was 20 in 1217, by 1270 that would put him around 75. It's also strange that the analysis discusses a law that was written 30 years after the assassination of Sturluson, but footnote 148 makes it explicit that they're talking about the same Bækill. Curbon7 (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Tgec17: and @Curbon7: pretty sure the idea that people in the Middle Ages dropped dead at 30 is a myth. There were people who grew to ripe old age in Medieval Europe. Even Augustus lived to 75! BuySomeApples (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree that its a myth apple but if you look at the age of deaths for the nobility in the 13th century most of the time they seem to live to between 50-65 assuming they don't die of unnatural causes. For example William Marshal lived to 73 and was considered very old at the time of his death. William's own father had lived to sixty; however none of William's sons lived up to 50 most dying in their 40s. (None of his five sons had legitimate issue and it was considered that his line had been cursed by an Irish Bishop) --Tgec17 (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • For a courtier who lived at least 75 years across the reigns of more than one king he certainly deserves his own Wikipedia article. The previous death at 1240 which I had marked is based off of his attachment to Skule Bardsson who died in battle in 1240; the assumption was that Bookling must have died with him in battle. However if he was a priest or clergymen maybe he could have avoided it? Or maybe he was off on business elsewhere? Also would it have been considered normal for very old men to be delivering laws? Often there seems to be references to elders handling laws so maybe this just happens to be a good example of it. The funny part is that if he was 90 years old delivering laws in 1270 that in of itself would make him notable. --Tgec17 (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He is mentioned in the Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptore at least three times on page 33, 51, and 78. You must look carefully and read the full page auto search will not work. He is probably mentioned more times but I haven't thoroughly read the entire text. --Tgec17 (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tgec17, may I ask how where you got that he was born crica 1180 and died circa 1240; I'm seeing some conflicting sourcing that shows him alive in 1270. Curbon7 (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bookling is first mentioned in the Hakan saga in the year 1217 as one of the Croziermen involved with the peace so he had to have been a grown man by then. He is refered to as bookling which seems to imply that he was a cleric meaning he would have been probably at least in his thirties at the time of the negotiations if not older. From this it is possible to conclude he must have been born before 1185. Considering he was mentioned in the negotiations he must have had some degree of prominence which would make it likely that he was in his late thirties or older by 1217. The last time he is mentioned in Rerum is in 1222 so its reasonable to assume that he would have died around the age of 60 which is a normal age of death for the time. I don't know where you got 1270 from.--Tgec17 (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Even if little is known about the person, he obviously played a part in Norwegian history and is mentioned in various sources. The article could certainly be expanded in line with the comments above.--Ipigott (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- Spellings in historical documents are frequently erratic. However two of the references are to Einridi Bookling and only one to the other spelling, so that I would suggest rename to that. The Source cited should be cited more specifically as "Icelandic Sagas [etc concerning] The British Isles: IV Saga of Hacon (trans. Sir G. W. Dasent), Rolls Series 1894". As we known neither dates of birth nor death, it may be best to give his dates as floruit 1217-22. Any specific dates would offend against WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since he is mentioned as living in 1270 it would be FL 1217-1270. But it can be factually said that he was born before 1200 with no speculation. What would be better would be to say born before 1200 and died after 1270 because it provides more information and is not based on speculation. You could even say born before 1190 because he is mentioned as a crozierman/bagler in 1217 it is therefore impossible that he was born after 1200 and highly probable he was born years before. Indeed it would be very strange if a 17 year old was granted a stewardship, not to mention the fact that he would have had to have been fighting at the age of 17 if he was born in 1200. Its far more likely he was born around 1190. I can't think of a good reason to change the name as he is refered to as Eindrid, Endrid, and Einridi... Endrid is just easier. --Tgec17 (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the discussion above is very interesting but it suggests to me that there is a fair amount of inference in this article; there’s lots of “he had to have been”, “likely that”, speculation about his age and so forth. There may we’ll be enough to merge some content to another article but I don’t think we usually base bio articles on this kind of textual detective work. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd say there are plenty of examples of Wikipedia articles from the period with less information on birth and death and less information in general. For example many of the troubadours have less information but still have their own separate Wikipedia pages despite being arguably less notable than a Norwegian statesman active for 70+ years.--Tgec17 (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep standalone article, or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per arguments made by Curbon7 and Ipigott, which I find compelling. St★lwart111 06:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I'm inclined to agree with the fact per above there's still actual historic significance and substance therefore enough for an article showing this. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted as WP:G4. — Diannaa (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Batman[edit]

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

Previously deleted WP:Fancruft article, recreated with the edit summary "Restoring this article because I saw no valid reason for it to be deleted." Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think that the film, television and video game incarnations are unnecessary because Batman (franchise) exists, but I suggest that we merge the list of other people to take the mantle of Batman and the list of more notable variants of Bruce Wayne into the main Batman article. GeniusReading2310 (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete via G4 (previous discussion here). There's a reason that deletion review is the correct procedure to restore a deleted version of a page, rather than copy-and-pasting the deleted text into a new article — it now looks like GeniusReading2310 is the original contributor of 99% of the article, when this is not the case and none of the original editors have been attributed. According to WP:RUD: If an article is deleted, its history is removed and thus its content cannot be reused on Wikipedia—even under the same article title—unless attribution is otherwise provided (or the page undeleted). DanCherek (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 07:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niraparayum Nilavilakkum[edit]

Niraparayum Nilavilakkum (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 film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmasere[edit]

Dharmasere (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 film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chiranjeevi Sudhakar[edit]

Chiranjeevi Sudhakar (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 film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeeta Samrat[edit]

Sangeeta Samrat (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 film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Runamukthalu[edit]

Runamukthalu (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 film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NomadBSD[edit]

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

Prod removed so I'm bringing it here. No references outside of its own website. Fails WP:GNG Notfrompedro (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: No evidence of proper BEFORE as some obvious hits on the search links, though at leat typically not RS. The book hits seem to tell false positves. [32] is a "go to" place for a quick overview. Probably not worth a redirect link. 07:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A Google News search yields a few sources dedicated to NomadBSD. For instance, itsfoss, ComputerBase, and Root.cz. A regular Google search yields sources from FreeBDS News, Phoronix, and PocketMags. Searching Google Books yields some sources that I think appear relevant, but there are no previews available. Searching the Internet Archive and newspapers.com yields nothing useful. Based on an WP:RSN discussion (here) Phoronix appears to be no more reliable than a blog. The other sources are not discussed at RSN at all, but they don’t appear to have editorial boards or fact checking staff and I would question their reliability. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete created by new user; it exists but there's nothing more here. Google search has some results, but nothing to support an article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources I found do not demonstrate notability and no one else has presented potential sources. TipsyElephant (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional child prodigies[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of fictional child prodigies (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 was reviewed for deletion in 2007, with the outcome 'no consensus'. WP has a clear definition of child prodigy: "A child prodigy is defined in psychology research literature as a person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert." This article has been used as a dumping ground for 'smart kids', including from comics or video games, who cannot be shown to meet this definition. At present there are three names in the article, two of whom have no supporting citations. The other one is a five year old child in a Belgian comic who would meet the WP criteria perhaps if he existed. (But in fact no such character could exist). As 'child prodigy' has a WP deinition, the intersection of this definition with works of fiction seems arbitrary and certainly not worthy of a WP list. You might, perhaps, conceive a list of 'smart children in fiction' - but how then would you define 'smart children'? - and what would be the use or point of a list which included, say , Adhemar and, e.g. Hermione in Harry Potter. This article can never be anything but a bunch of spam. Delete Smerus (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an inappropriate nomination. Note that the first discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional Child Prodigies. What's more concerning is that over the past six weeks Smerus has incrementally removed most of the content, including numerous references, yielding a much poorer list than existed before. Of course, a cursory review of such a list missing Ender Wiggin is a dead giveaway that it has been previously decimated. By all means, if we're going to have a discussion about such a list, let's roll it back to before Smerus' removals and discuss this version instead. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to discussing the list as it was - as that will strengthen my case by demonstrating how the entries which I have removed do not meet the WP detinition of child prodigy. Nothing, by the way, in the article or the single citation given in the article on Ender Wiggins, indicates that Wiggins was "a person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert", so I suggest better examples may be needed if Jclemens's case is to be supported. I am not sure why Jclemens has repeated the link to the original discussion, which I give at the beginiing of my nomination, noting that there was then 'no consensus'. --Smerus (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't understand that Ender Wiggin's output was the genocide of an alien race, I can't really help you, but I can say that removing such an entry from the list demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of child prodigies in fiction. With respect to Wiggin, we have a plethora of Google Scholar references noting him as a prodigy here. I've not evaluated any of them for significant RS coverage, because Wiggin is just one list entry, admittedly likely to be among the most well documented, and not the subject of this list. The best way forward at this point would be for you to withdraw the nomination, revert all your changes to the list, and begin to work at actually attempting to source the list items: again, I really don't care if you think you did a reasonable WP:BEFORE search in your six-week long progressive paring of the list, because your net output with respect to Wiggin demonstrates that whatever efforts you put in did not amount to a 30 second Google search. Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to pile on, but it also occurred to me that you think Child prodigy matters to the list inclusion criteria, when in fact whether or not each list entry is referred to by WP:RS as such is normative. Wikipedia (or Wiktionary, which has a definition that doesn't correspond) is not a reliable source, and reliable sources are allowed to use their own, possibly inconsistent, definitions in their own coverage. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. In the article for child it says The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines child as "a human being below the age of 18 years". So any doing anything to be considered a prodigy when still legally a child, should be included. Dream Focus 09:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have restored the article to what it was. You can't go through and erase 99% of article before you send it to AFD. The dictionary defines prodigy as "a highly talented child or youth" [33]. Any search engine with a news search, if you check for "child prodigy" it doesn't just list those 10 or younger. Anyway, Ender was a prodigy, that's why they choose the kid to lead the attack against space aliens that had previously attacked humanity and which they feared would come again and wipe them all out. You don't just give that sort of responsibility to a child if there wasn't something special about them. Dream Focus 23:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another indiscriminate list. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please describe in detail how this list is indiscriminate. I mean, sometimes you provide entirely appropriate, reasoned rationales in deletion discussions and actively contribute to the dialogue even if I disagree with your position, and then at other times you provide an WP:IDONTLIKEIT WP:VAGUEWAVE like this which does nothing to the discussion forward. In short, you can do better. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jclemens On the subject of best practices, it's always best to ping someone if you want them to reply :) Anyway, you are right, I could elaborate more. My problem #1 is that there are too many fictional child prodigies to make this work. A lot of anime characters, or otherwise characters from children books or animations, are prodigies in something. Ex. [34]. 10? We could easily list a few hundred similar shows. There is a zillion of works with fictional youth that have been or could be called prodigy. I don't think it is a definable trait for most. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: But there are strategies in Wikipedia's guidelines that tell us how to avoid a list becoming indiscriminate. And if there are secondary and primary sources telling us if a character is a child prodigy, than I don't see the problem: Basing content on sources is the most basic thing here after all. And then I cannot follow the problem of length. If there really should be very many entries (the inclusion of which is supported by policy), then the list can easily be split, in this case with type of medium being the obvious choice.
Lastly I can't help noticing that the two deletion !votes so far seem to be based on "this list might become too long" (Piotrus) and "this list might become too short" (ZXCVBNM). Daranios (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity what do you think about merging the referenced parts to the main article? It's not overly long, and certainly, 'child prodigies in fiction', is a section that is needed and that could list examples. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: As for me, as usual I would prefer a merge to deletion. However I do not think it would be helpful in this case. I did not check the quality of all the references myself, but just talking about "the referenced parts": There are ca. 50 entries which have references! I don't think putting those into a new section in Child prodigy would improve that article (while a short new section on fictional child prodigies, possibly based on sources here and sources found in this discussion, would). In addtion, I think navigation is one of main purposes of this list. There are blue-linked entries here which don't have references, which is fine in a list. Those should not be lost in a merge (passing scrutiny about their place here not withstanding). Daranios (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, I believe the removals by Smerus were done in good faith trying to fit entries to the narrow psychological definition, but I also think that even based on this some removals were unwarranted.
@Smerus: I don't understand what you meant with "one is a five year old child in a Belgian comic who would meet the WP criteria perhaps if he existed. (But in fact no such character could exist)." Could you please explain why "no such character could exist"?
Now for the current state I think the list is perfectly valid and should be kept: Child prodigy is a notable subject; we have an undisputed List of child prodigies; we have a long list of blue-linked fictional child prodigies, many of which have their own article, so we can assume they are notable. So it makes sense to split out the List of fictional child prodigies to avoid the fictional characters having WP:Undue weight in List of child prodigies. So the existence of the list is valid notability-wise according to WP:LISTN, and serves the purpose of navigation, one recognized reason for having a list according to WP:LISTPURP.
As for the definition/inclusion criteria, I think the most important reason should be if secondary (and perhaps primary?) sources call a character a child prodigy. (And that makes many removals unwarranted.) Only if this is not the case one way or another do we need to make the editorial judgment if a specific character conforms to a definition, narrow or broad. Daranios (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Smerus: I came upon another question: You stated that "This article can never be anything but a bunch of spam." To the contrary I have found that there are actually secondary sources discussing the topic of fictional child prodigies, like The Child Prodigy Ages are Out (chapter 8 of Misfit Children: An Inquiry into Childhood Belongings or The Child in French and Francophone Literature. How did you come to that opinion, assuming you did a proper WP:BEFORE search? Daranios (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.cbr.com/top-child-teenaged-prodigies-anime Dream Focus 15:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this article were reduced to bluelinks, as should be done, there would be very few entries. Just another subject that is better off as a category than a list that is prone to gather fancruft.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Fictional child prodigies shows there would be ample blue links if that's all that was listed. List are always more useful than categories. Being afraid of "fancruft", that is things you don't like, appearing in an article is not a valid reason to delete it. Dream Focus 14:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: Yeah, I too was also wondering how you came to the conclusion "very few entries". I took the trouble of counting and reach ca. 30 blue links (not counting something like Matilda, where the article of the work contains significant treatment of the character), of which there are 23 stand-alone articles. Also, the amount supported be citations of secondary sources clearly speaks against the percieved problem of "fancraft" in this case. Daranios (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that a lot of the members of Category:Fictional child prodigies fail Wikipedia:NONDEF as they are not well known for being child prodigies; it's just part of their backstory, sometimes one that almost nobody realizes. If the list were reduced to characters with articles who were predominantly known for their status as a child prodigy, there would only be a few; Jimmy Neutron and Matilda being the only clearly notable ones.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do go through my above-linked cursory Google Scholar search for Ender Wiggin please. I think you'll find that the more you research, the less well your characterization of the topic holds up. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ender Wiggin is totally unsourced right now. Once you have to argue that if certain articles were notable, the list itself would be notable, you're putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps it could be reconsidered once we have sufficient, stable articles on child prodigies. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: Huh? Ender Wiggin is not "totally unsourced"! It is referenced with this article from The A.V. Club, which not only states that Ender is a child prodigy, but even how this is relevant in an out-of-universe context! So as it seems you are mistaken on this point, you will understand I still doubt your "very few entries" statement. Also, many entries are sourced. So I am happy to discuss this further, but I'd say it is now on you to show which of the 30 entries are in doubt so as to arrive at "very few" in the end. And if this would be the case, which I doubt, then the question would be why deletion should be preferable to a merge to List of child prodigies according to WP:AtD. Daranios (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That article hardly counts as WP:SIGCOV... first of all, it's not specifically about Ender Wiggin, and really only mentions him for one sentence. It's the kind of thing that would likely be removed from an actually notable article for irrelevance.
    As for whether a merge is appropriate... I don't know if it's typical to include fictional subjects in non-fictional lists. If it's allowed, I'd endorse it and probably change my !vote to merge. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: The guideline you have cited a little further down tells us that significant coverage is not required for content within an article or list. Also, as Jclemens has already stated, this one article is not the end-all of secondary sources on Ender Wiggin. Did you do a proper search to check if there are no other secondary sources before arriving at your opinion? But looking at the A.V. Club article itself, yes, there is only one sentence that includes the character "name". But more sentences give us context for the character: "Why the sudden excitement? With the end of its Twilight Saga in sight, Summit is reportedly looking for its next youth-oriented franchise, ... one where the kids are even younger and creepier in their precociousness." "But given our current fascination with killer kids, there’s probably never been a better time to try to finally make this movie." So the article does exactly what you require: It tells us why being a child prodigy (in the art of killing in this case) is important for the character: It is what makes it fascinating for the audience.
As for merge options, yes, I think combining fictional content in lists of real content is appropriate when separate lists are not warranted due to length. I recently came upon this in the case List of people with surname Taylor#Fictional characters. Daranios (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unnecessary, indiscriminate list that could easily be covered in the main article as summary style prose as it should be. TTN (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Child prodigy - there are certainly enough sources that speak of fictional child prodigies as a group to meet WP:NLIST both provided in the article and more. My main issue is that the term 'child prodigy' is not concrete enough which is probably why the article has become a dumping ground lacking citation for many of those included in the list. The sources must actually assert that the character is a child prodigy. This is probably WP:FIXABLE but I am not sure it is worth or encycopeadic to trawl through sources to find one that calls the character a prodigy just to justify inclusion. I think a Fictional Child Prodigies section would be better on the Child prodigy page with a paired down list. Happy to see Delete too due to my general dislike of these kind of useless lists. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vladimir.copic: I think "the article has become a dumping ground lacking citation for many" is overstating the problem: Sure, there are entries without references (some of which are blue links still helpful for navigation), but the significant majority has references. Daranios (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny Comment how has Ender Wiggin been linked to 10 times in this discussion but I am the first to link WP:NLIST?! 05:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I see your point that the discussion has bogged down around one specific item, exemplifying some points of criticism vs. support. But WP:LISTN has been linked before. Daranios (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on how this list does or does not meet our inclusion requirements (e.g. NLIST) is likely to be more helpful than a focus on Ender Wiggin as an example of why this list does or doesn't make sense.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems useful to anybody wanting to see how child prodigies are represented fictionally. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Was on the fence at first, but Daranios and Jclemens make very persuasive arguments. I'm convinced that the topic as a whole is notable enough to justify a list, and that the list will not necessarily be fancruft-y. Mlb96 (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepAs per above. DJRSD (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies mandating Covid-19 vaccine[edit]

List of companies mandating Covid-19 vaccine (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 an unnecessary list, as it only seems to represent some major companies the U.S. and will be useless when COVID-19 is over since no companies will be mandating it by then. Until then, the list will likely never be complete and I don't see its need to be a Wikipedia article. See WP:LISTCRUFT. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


*This list was part of the article COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the United States before that article was redirected to COVID-19_vaccination_in_the_United_States#Vaccination_mandates. Vaccine mandates seems to be a legitimate encyclopedic topic so a stand alone list seems acceptable. Covid-19 may never be over and companies may continue to have mandates. If not, having a historical reference may prove of some value. The date the mandate is dropped could be added if that happens. There are lists on Wikipedia that will likely never be complete. Nv8200pa talk 01:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nv8200pa: If that's the case, the article should probably merged into COVID-19 vaccination in the United States#Vaccination mandates in form of a short, descriptive prose noting some of the first or most notable among the companies to mandate the vaccine. It's also mostly unclear and unorganized for who the companies are mandating the vaccine for, whether it's for customers, employees, or both and which country the mandate is in. While there are many list articles that will never be complete as you mentioned, this is a more extreme case, because it's nearly everyday we hear news about companies mandating COVID restrictions/requirements, so this list will rapidly become outdated unless someone is there every week to add, remove, and edit entries. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The contemporary and fast-changing nature of this topic is likely to mean the list is never accurate. Completeness issues aside, this will need so much monitoring as rules from individual companies change and will run into WP:TOOSOON problems. The topic is already well covered on here. There is already an abundance of caviats attached to those companies listed - do not foresee this getting simpler. The list at the moment includes a trade association and audience members which I am not sure falls under the rubric of the list as well as erroneously stating that all TSX60 companies are mandating vaccinations. The TSX60 entry links to an article that is constantly updating as companies change their policies (Who will monitor this?). While these are fixable problems the list is unmaintainable - WP:NOTNEWS. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Too indiscriminate of a list, especially given the FDA's recent full approval of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. --MuZemike 11:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes that opened the flood gates. It means in some ways this list may soon be as useful as "List of schools that mandate the measles vaccine".John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This has the potential to grow very large especially since basically any company that requires any employee to get the vaccine can be included. Also for multi-location companies, as long as they mandate it for any emplyee for any time at any location they can be included. This has the potnetial to be very long, especially if some locations mandate all employers in their local create this mandate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, I have to say on a certain philosophical level the fact that we not only inclde those who allow various exemptions but those who allow an alternative route of weekly testing makes this list mean less than it claims it means.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The list also has serious scope issues. For example, we have lots of evidence of various universities mandating vaccines for employees. So no one has really presented any evidence that the scope of this list makes sense. All the more so because including mandates on audience members seems to deviate from the idea company mandates implies.John Pack Lambert (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. The most common deletion argument, that the article is an improper synthesis collecting albums from different types of lists that do not focus on "influence" as such, does not appear to have been changed or refuted. RL0919 (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of hip hop albums considered to be influential[edit]

List of hip hop albums considered to be influential (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inclusion criteria for this list are necessarily arbitrary, contrary to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Tagged as a WP:ESSAY since 2019, which policy it also arguably fails. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SYNTH of published lists, which might also violate Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This might be salvageable if it were renamed List of hip hop albums regarded as the best or something similar, but I'd absolutely understand if other editors disagree with that idea... my point is that nowhere in this article is the idea of being "influential" demonstrated, it seems to be simply a list of albums generally regarded as the best in this music genre, kind of a "100 Hip Hop Albums You Must Hear" list. That itself opens the door to a whole lot of debate and edit warring – just off the top of my head I could argue for the inclusion of Liquid Swords, Things Fall Apart, Black on Both Sides, AmerKKKa's Most Wanted, O.G. Original Gangster, All Eyez on Me, and I'm sure there are others that can justifiably claim to be influential hip hop albums. The commentary is either original research or comments lifted straight from the sources, and the sources seem pretty arbitrary as well – Pitchfork and Paste have both done "best albums" lists specifically for hip hop, but these have been overlooked while generalized "best albums" lists from Mixmag (an electronic dance music publication) and NME (mostly guitar music) are included. Even if kept this almost needs a complete WP:TNT. Richard3120 (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH. The lede explaining the rubric for inclusion is WP:ORIGINAL and verges on WP:FANCRUFT. This article is fairly similar but I would argue should probably be deleted too and doesn't give precedent. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless the is an actual stard definition given to "being influential" this is clearly NPOV rules non-compliant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per violating everything that is holy. --Muhandes (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC) While much work was done on the article, "being influential" is still not a viable topic. Most sources used are about the best albums, which is not the same as being influential. --Muhandes (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Prior voters, please take a look at the significant trim just performed and reconsider. I agree with some of the points above. For years this article was stable and not full of gushing rambling, or just a mouthpiece for Peter Shapiro. But Robvanvee and I seemed to be the only ones keeping it tidy and we've fallen behind it seems. Yes, this article does attract a lot of drive-by fancrufting, but so do thousands of others. I disagree with some above, because Wikipedia has many established articles like List of films considered the best that is akin to. Not arguing OSE but there's a great many high-traffic high-visibility articles that are these list-dependent "survey" articles that aren't alleged copyvios or nommed for deletion. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article in its current state is holding to its stated form, that the albums are on the mainstream lists and the lists are what they purport to be, not best of the year or the like. JesseRafe (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nom). JesseRafe's edits seem to have reformulated this list along the lines suggested by Richard3120 above. If this were simply moved to List of hip hop albums regarded as the best or similar, that might negate my concern about arbitrariness. I only say "might" because I am still concerned about indiscriminate picking and choosing of "best of" lists. (A concern that goes for List of films considered the best and List of novels considered the greatest as well.) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:POV. Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2 - So I read the talk page for the first time, and ~12 years ago an IP intentionally modeled the structure of the article on List of prominent operas, which still uses that same "arbitrary" criteria of needing to be named on the majority of the lists consulted. I think the problem here is two-fold, one, opera is static and the lists won't change year-over-year, two, this article really should be moved to "...best" (plurality of critics) not "influential" (nebulous, lends to personal subjectivity or academic navel-gazing like the 3 dozen quotes from Shapiro). I don't know why every one of these film, novel, album, opera etc lists need their own superlative in the title space, but the creator of the article hasn't edited since the aughts. I would boldly move it myself, but don't want to obfuscate this discussion. I think if we used the opera model, and stuck to notable lists, e.g. RS's Top 500 albums was widely covered as news itself, not some indie blog's year-end rankings. Also, note that this article gets mid-hundreds views per day. It comes up high on search engines (as do the best films, novels, etc) so it's a topic (that is if we change it to "best) that's both written about and sought out. JesseRafe (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete By its very construction, this list is pure WP:SYNTH. There are places on the internet where constructing a list in this way would be appropriate, but Wikipedia is not one of them. I think JesseRafe's comparison with List of films considered the best is a bit misguided, because that list is constructed in an entirely different way—the inclusion criteria there is that each film must have been voted the best in a notable poll. Using polls rather than lists and only counting the top entry from each rather than all entries makes a lot of difference (though I personally think that list should have a slightly higher threshold for inclusion). That being said, I'm not exactly unbiased since I have been quite heavily involved in editing the film list and discussing the entries and inclusion criteria on its talk page. Maybe it would be possible and appropriate to construct a hip hop list in the same way as the film list, but that would be a fundamentally different list than the one under discussion and would need to be constructed from scratch. TompaDompa (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_August_25&oldid=1042045655"