Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 16	December 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Clear fail of WP:GEOLAND.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kizhekketheruvu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND; road junctions are not presumed notable and there's no significant coverage or other indication of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Uncited article that some's padded out with unrelated cruft. FOARP (talk) 09:44, 13 December 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 23:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Explicit. Appreciate the re-list is to get further consensus but this is an unreferenced article, the PROD was getting on 10 years ago, and it was only de-prodded because the PRODer omitted to give a PROD reason. Suggest that if there aren't any further !votes after this re-list the closer just delete anyway. FOARP (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails WP:GNG. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robin (answering machine)[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is some independent coverage in reliable sources.^[1]^[2]

References

^ "BT Robin answerphone 202B, 1989". Science Museum Group collection. Science Museum Group.
^ "Management Services". 29. Institute of management services. 1985: 38. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No RS. as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails WP:GNG. Not convinced by the new sourcing added.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 01:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shantinath Jain temple, Chennai[edit]

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

No indication of notability of this temple. Fails WP:GNG. Such temples are located in every street and there are more than 100 in Chennai. Venkat TL (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article was initially created with a single source, but now additional book sources have been added. With this, I think the article passes WP:GNG. It appears that there is scope for expanding the article since the temple is perhaps the most important Jain temple in the city. Rasnaboy (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rasnaboy Please describe here, the length and the details of the coverage along with the source. From what I have seen in my WP:BEFORE only passing mentions or a short para on the temple was found (they do not pass the "significant depth of coverage" criteria of GNG). There is nothing that makes this temple stand out among other temples. Venkat TL (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muthiah (2014) describes the temple in detail, and many of the info in the article are from that source. Lang et al. (1997) isn't as detailed as Muthiah but both are secondary sources befitting the GNG. Although there aren't numerous sources available online, the availability of secondary sources discussing about the temple more than just a passing mention is what makes me see a scope for expansion. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are still being vague about the length and the detail of coverage. Muthiah, S. (2004). Madras Rediscovered: A Historical Guide to Looking Around : Supplemented with Tales of 'Once Upon a City'. East West Books (Madras) Pvt. Limited. ISBN 978-81-88661-24-4. This book is a travel guide. And as expected it makes 1 mention of this temple. I don't consider a single mention as significant coverage. Neither the notability has been asserted in any way nor sources with in depth coverage available. Venkat TL (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pendant Productions[edit]

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

The subject does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH or even WP:N or WP:WEB. I originally opened a WP:PROD and then realized that a previous discussion on the subject's notability was opened in the wrong venue (discussion can be found on the talk page) so I figured that I should go through WP:AFD. Here's my rundown of the current sources. The Digital Podcast source is a short entry from a podcast, which generally aren't considered much more than a WP:BLOG. The Review Fix source is an WP:INTERVIEW with Jeffrey Bridges, which makes it not independent of the subject. The All Comic is a WP:BLOG. The Sonic Society source appears to be another WP:BLOG or WP:UGC. The KickStarter source is an example of WP:SPS (the link was even blacklisted and I had to resubmit this AfD because I got an error). The Scifi Radio source appears to be permanently dead, but my guess is that it wasn't much more than a WP:BLOG. The BBC source is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION and the URL includes "blogs" so I'm guessing BBC ran a blog back then. There is a long list of unreferenced awards here, but the awards are not for the production company and the production company does not WP:INHERIT notability from the podcasts. It's also worth noting that the Audio Verse Awards doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. The Parsec Awards does have a Wikipedia page, but even then, only three Parsec Awards were won by podcasts produced by the company. Searching for more sources yields very little. For instance, searching "Pendant Productions" on Google News results in a single passing mention on Bleeding Cool. Searching for similar phrases like "Pendant Audio" or "Pendant" alongside "Jeffrey Bridges" yields a few more passing mentions or false positives. Searching for these different combinations of related words on Google, Google News, Google News Archives, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Newspapers.com yields practically nothing. As a final note, it appears at least one of the primary contributors to the page has a COI, which they declared in the discussion on the talk page. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines for the reasons nom has mentioned. Coverage is not significant or of substance - Such-change47 (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elisabeth Medical Foundation[edit]

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

Unable to find any third-party, in-depth coverage of this organization. Plenty of mentions but nothing to pass WP:CORP. Failed CSD A7 in 2020. Toddst1 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN: With the hidden info presented by Brigade Piron. Toddst1 (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this is not kept as a separate article then sourced content should be merged elewhere - maybe to Elisabeth of Bavaria, Queen of Belgium. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quick keep. I suspect the nom conducted a search with the non-notable English term rather than "Fondation médicale Reine Élisabeth" or its Dutch equivalent. Especially in the pre-war period, the FMRE was an research institute with a genuinely international reputation and it is still a major funder of medical research in Belgium. It is discussed in academic sources, eg 1. Its original Art Deco building might well be notable in its own right and is discussed at length, eg. Tourist Website and Brussels Region Heritage Listing. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the evidence provided by Brigade Piron. Another example of the importance of searching in the subject's own language when conducting WP:BEFORE.Oakshade (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an old foundation and there is a likely to be tons of coverage waiting to be discovered. scope_creep^Talk 16:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Brigade Piron.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone who knows how to close Afds please close this one? There's no need to pile on more opinions when the original poster has withdrawn. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 R. Wallace & Sons. Clear consensus not to retain the article, but this was a very good ATD. Daniel (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace Silversmiths Inc.[edit]

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

The only ref that is an independent reliable source appears to be about the brand being acquired as part of a larger deal, not in-depth coverage of the article subject. I didn't find much else in my own search. I'm not sure if this is a case of copyright violation or citeogenesis, but much of the content is nearly word-for-word from the company's own website. So, we've got the company's own words about itself, and one minor reference in a trade publication. This does not seem salvageable. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The hallmark has a brief mention in [[1]], most links are about trademark registrations. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is required to demonstrate notability of the company. Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No help for this one. Could not find any sign of notability online. There could be offline sources of notability but this is not my subject area. Even if notability is proven by another the article is at best a WP:TNT. —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wallace Silversmiths is a well-known and important company in the history of American silver.

“One of the most noted factories in Connecticut which is devoted to the manufacture of silverware, and one which has in no small degree contributed to the development of the industry” The Jewelers' Circular and Horological Review - 7th February 1894 (https://archive.org/details/jewelerscircular00unse_20/page/n49/mode/2up?q=Wallace) Bloger (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All over the the Jewelers' Circular and Horological Review https://archive.org/details/jewelerscircular?query=Wallace&sin=TXT Bloger (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always willing to reconsider, but search results are not indicative of significant coverage. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to R. Wallace & Sons - AfD isn't for clean up! Poor Wallace - an iconic silver company! They are basing in Connecticut and are the same as R. Wallace & Sons - they have been operating as Wallace Silversmiths for a long time. Also had production in Canada. Before there was a thing called the internet, there was Wallace silver. I gave up because I got tired of how many article sthere are on newspapers.com, I admit. Their items are in the collection of the Brooklyn Museum [2], the Hagley Museum,[3], the Detroit Museum of Art,[4] and the Metropolitan Museum of Art.[5]

Entry in the Encyclopedia of American Silver Manufacturers by Dorothy Rainwater, 1975, University of Michigan, ISBN 9780517521458
Entry in Kovel's American silver marks by Ralph M Kovel and Terry H Kovel, 1989, Crown Publishers, ISBN 9780517568828
"Wallace Silversmiths Began As Britannia Mill" - Record-Journal
"In Silver Industry, the End of an Era" - Hartford Courant
"Wallace Silversmiths reunion is more like a family reunion" - Record-Journal
"Recapturing an Era Paved With Silver" - New York Times
"Oneida Community, Wallace Silversmiths" - Record-Journal
"Dawn Star" - Herald and News
"Wallace products display set for Saturday picnic" - Record-Journal
"Wallace head a director of unit in Canada" - Record-Journal
"N. Y. real estate firms like it here" - Record-Journal
"Wallace Readies Plan for Gala Celebration" - The Spokesman-Review
"Gifts for Gourmets" - The Berkshire Eagle
"Heavy Opposition Voiced To Expansion of Factory" - Record-Journal

And there are 100+ more - Missvain (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Indian Union Muslim League. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Union Dalit League[edit]

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

Non-notable divition of a county-level political party in Kerala. Fails WP:NORG as I could not find any good sources covering the wing. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indian Union Muslim League. Leaders of this organisation have been MLAs, eg U. C. Raman. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Indian Union Muslim League unless examples of independent coverage are brought forward. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Indian Union Muslim League.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deportation of Korean adoptees from the United States[edit]

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

The very first sentence of the article says it is a rare phenomenon. Then why do we have this article? ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources provided in article and available online (e.g. [6]) show that the topic meets WP:GNG. A phenomenon being rare does not mean that it is necessarily unencyclopedic or non-notable. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a notable phenomenon 1, 2, 3. There are many more sources as well.★Trekker (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as appears notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 20:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 majority of the sourcing I'm seeing is either (1) event announcements or (2) press releases copied into various questionable sources. For me, this fails WP:NFILM at this point.

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qasida of dhaka[edit]

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

Non-notable short documentary by non-notable director. The only sources available are press release-driven announcements of it being trotted around to mostly non-notable festivals. The only award won was at one such non-notable festival, so not a major award. WP:MOSFILM advises mentioning only festival screenings that are noteworthy, and not listing non-notable awards because of the proliferation of film festivals and "award mills".

Article was speedily recreated by a single-purpose account after the first deletion discussion ended in soft delete due to minimal participation. Does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Potential Delete The better question here is how legit the Indus Valley FF is? If it is legit and reconized in the industry then that would change things.Super (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharif Hossain Asif, Minkal, আফতাবুজ্জামান, and MdsShakil: Pinging as interested parties: article author and all participants in prior discussions of the short and director, in the hope of attracting a quorum and generating discussion. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Qasida is historically important for Dhaka, and this film was about it. I think those reference and coverage are enough to pass GNG or WP:NFP. —MdsShakil (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "keep" argument is that the topic is notable. The "delete" side does not contest that, but argues that the current content fails core content policies (WP:V, WP:IINFO) as well as the guideline MOS:POPCULT, to such an extent that a total rewrite would be needed (WP:TNT). These arguments are not only in the majority, but also stronger. Notability is a necessary, but not sufficient criterium for inclusion, and compliance with an inclusion guideline does not compensate for noncompliance with core policies. This amounts to rough consensus for deletion. But the article can (and should) be recreated in a policy- and MOS-compliant manner (i.e., well-sourced prose instead of a random accumulation of appearances of the UN in popular media). Sandstein 09:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations in popular culture[edit]

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

This article is almost entirely uncited, and the few refs mostly sucks, which could in theory be fixed/weeded. IMO though, the topic, UN, is to big to make a decent article of this kind, it's like having articles for US or UK in pop-cult. Well, more like Norway in pop-cult perhaps, but still. I don't know what policies or guidelines that says those articles would be bad ideas, but they probably exist (the PAG:s). Category:Works about the United Nations can cover this, or a new pop-cult cat. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that there was an afd about a year ago. Well, I think my reason is valid, so let's do it again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per the discussion, Speedy Keep and nom withdrawal last time. The page was improved during the last attempt and afterwards. As I wrote then: Keep, per topic notability of the United Nations. As one of the iconic buildings and organizations in civilization its use in popular culture is immediately recognizable. It's a fine and interesting popular culture page which enhances the understanding of the topic and its place in history. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn Question. If this afd is closed as keep/nc, and I start improving the article by removing stuff like
- In SimCity 3000, the UN building can be built as a landmark.
- The Advance Wars series of games includes the Allied Nations.
- In several issues of Superman, Superman is mentioned as having coordinated his activities with the United Nations.
- United Nations Global Occult Coalition (UNGOC) or just Global Occult Coalition (GOC). A coalition of 108 organizations (such as the Illuminati and Templar Knights) formed in 1946 (initially as the Allied Occult Initiative) and under the supervision of the United Nations to destroy "parathreats" −− paranormal, supernatural, and potentially hostile objects and entities −− and see themselves as the police of the anomalous world. Made up of High Command with the Council of 108, which governs three divisions: the PHYSICS Division, for tactical operations by strike teams; the PSYCHE Division, for diplomatic relations with paranormal communities; and the PTOLEMY Division, for support purposes as well as research and development. Appears multiple times in the SCP Foundation tales and articles, sometimes as an ally and sometimes an antagonist.^[1]
will you then revert me without adding decent secondary sources connecting the whatever to UN? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ DrClef (11 January 2014). "Global Occult Coalition Casefiles". SCP Foundation Wiki. Retrieved 3 December 2021.

Course not, but please be selective and trim the trivial (as you've listed here) and not where the U.N. is a major or semi-major plot point, such as the Gidget film mentioned below. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's far too broad, on a par with New York City in popular culture, and Severely prune. It tries to list everything, but the kitchen sink associated with it in any way. ~~Most~~ Many of the entries are exceedingly trivial~~, e.g. Gidget is a UN tour guide~~. Black Hawk Down has one lousy connection: "the United Nations Security Council authorizes a military operation with a peacekeeping mandate." Clarityfiend (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Working at and showing the operation of the U.N. is a big part of the 1969 Gidget film. No, the nom and you get it wrong that the U.N. is too broad of a subject, that's just a white raven argument and an exaggeration. The U.N. building and its daily operations are much less of a subject than New York City in popular culture - for example, the U.N. is in New York City. This has been and remains a fine page and topic for interested editors and readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This seems to be a suitable WP:SAL. It needs some more citations true. However, before an editor deletes an unsourced entry in the list I would expect them to make a sincere effort to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a suitable SAL because it violates WP:IINFO and MOS:POPCULT, and there's no evidence so far that the problem is fixable. There are apparently zero sources discussing the UN in popular culture, and so the topic fails WP:GNG. It's not a matter of simply finding the corresponding fictional work for each entry, as the sources need to be secondary, not the works themselves. Avilich (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The reason this article is a kitchen sink list should be obvious. The UN, as an object, as an institution, as concept, as a global villain, as a global hero, is so psyche imprinted that it appears in pop culture thousands of times a year. What you need isn't article deletion it is list inclusion criteria. Deleting this article would be like shooting the baby while you drain the bathwater. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote is invalid per WP:SKCRIT, and kitchen sink lists of the sort are not compliant with MOS:POPCULT. Avilich (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify (not yet appropriate for mainspace). This article doesn't discuss the UN in popular culture, it's an indiscriminate listing of every piece of trivia and media appearances in which the UN is featured. As per MOS:POPCULT, cultural references aren't worthy of mention simply because they exist, they need to have been discussed, not simply mentioned, in reliable secondary sources (presumably these exist?), for a decent commentary to be writable. If this article's viability is to be demonstrated, it should be rewritten from scratch, in summary style prose rather than in a simple catalog/list format with no inclusion criteria aside from the subject itself simply featuring somehow. This could possibly be done in the UN article itself, and then split from it if deemed unwieldy. Avilich (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly a worthy concept for an article - plenty of content and RS to support. The UN has been featured widely in fictional works from The 1960s on, everything including The Man from UNCLE, Doctor Who, to Superman, to James Bond. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)As much as my previous comment stands, it is true, there just isn't hte RS here to establish and support the article - so changing my vote *Delete Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It has, but sadly, next to nobody bothered covering this fact, so it makes it ORish and GNG-failing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT but with a note that the topic is likely notable - it just needs a total rewrite from the ORish list of trivia into a proper analysis. In the current form, the article is a terrible trivia listicle, very much in the style that I and User:TompaDompa have been slowly rewriting in the science-fiction realm. Sadly, I don't think any of the reference works I have on SF topics cover UN (although maybe they'd for the topic of world government). A quick source review finds this topic discussed in a Master thesis: [7]. Unfortunately, the thesis states clearly that ". So far, only one recent article by Pablo C. Diaz has probed the image of the UN in popular culture" (and "Diaz seems to be the only scholar who has applied the issue of representation and an engagement with sources of popular culture to the UN") and later "no scholars who have studied the UN’s image have found it necessary to probe representations of the UN in popular culture". So if we trust this recent (2019) thesis, it is clear that the topic is sadly a case of WP:TOOSOON. However, the sources found should be enough to have a section in the main UN article where the current title could redirect (and WP:SOFTDELETE is preferable). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A commentary on "How to kill good Wikipedia pages" by saying that nobody has written about the overall topic as such. They don't have to, no matter how many limiting factors a couple of editors are using to knock-about long standing pages. Too soon? The U.N. was established in the late 1940s and has been used in popular culture since. The move to delete entries on sci-fi topics is being opposed by many editors, justifiably and honorably. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:OR and WP:GNG. If nobody or next to nobody has written about a topic, no matter how potentially interesting, it is not our place to be the first. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could add to Randy's commentary about "How to kill good Wikipedia pages" with "subtitle: when Wikipedia guidelines don't apply to me because I don't like them" – The Grid (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr, I admire the fairness you gave to this article by looking for sources online, even if I disagree with your final recommendation. Your contribution really should have been viewed more positively, and I hope others will seek to emulate you in the future. Pilaz (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and MOS:POPCULT. There isn't third party coverage to support this article, and the way it is written is at complete odds with the Manual of Style for an encyclopedic article.
Don't write it as a list. Do write it as prose.

Don't rely entirely on primary sources. Do focus on what's said in reliable third party sources.

Don't go into original research of every time the UN is featured in the media. Do provide an overview of how the UN is represented in fiction.
Frustratingly, many of the entries in this unreliable list have nothing to do with the UN, which is what happens when editors make no effort to create something based on third party sources. There might be a potential article to be written here about the portrayal of the UN in fiction, but there is no third party coverage to retain in service of that, and nothing to preserve. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Draftify) - The UN is certainly notable, and an article discussing the UN's depiction in fiction would almost certainly also be notable. What is not notable is a list of every time the UN has been mentioned or appeared in a piece of fiction. Very little of the information here is actually sourced, making it seem to be mostly WP:OR, and what few sources that are included are only being used to support a few of the individual pieces of trivia. As there is no actual kind of critical discussion or information based on reliable sources on the overall topic of the United Nations in Popular Culture included in this list, there is really nothing that should actually be retained for an actual prose article or section to be created. I have no objection for it being draftified, if someone really thinks something could actually be extracted from here for a proper article, but this largely unsourced list of trivia should not remain in the mainspace in the meantime. Rorshacma (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Come on, this isn't TV Tropes. This is notable as a topic if someone can find secondary sources about the UN in pop culture, not just secondary sources about examples of the UN being in pop culture (that would be WP:SYNTH). That entirely hypothetical article would use about 0% of what currently exists in this article - the (again, hypothetical) editor who would write it would be doing it from scratch whether this is kept or not. Just delete it. -- asilvering (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of the U.N. in popular culture is what the page is about. This "deletionists dream" interpretation is just that, a wordy interpretation of what editors think they are reading. This is not Synth, it's a topic with many examples on a well read and worked on page. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this article is currently not WP:SYNTH. Perhaps you misread me? What it is, currently, is Not A Wikipedia Article. It's a list of trivia. -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic of the "UN in popular culture" is covered both holistically and specifically within movie reviews. I have found this article which takes a holistic and balanced look at how the UN is portrayed in popular culture. The website of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs also has a short annex with movies which cover the UN. This article by the NY-based Carnegie Council similarly explores why the UN receives poor media coverage. This indicates a limited, but not inexistent presence of general discussion of how the UN is portrayed in popular culture. And yet, I still find myself in disagreement with delete !votes. They are right to point out that indiscriminate listing violates WP:NOT, but the most tangential connections can be simply removed if found unsourced.They mention that the article does not meet WP:GNG, while ignoring that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". The multitude of reviews of movies which feature the UN tend to give in-depth coverage of how the organizations is viewed: for example, this Foreign Policy piece discusses the allegations brought forward by the 2010 movie The Whistleblower, calling it "perhaps the darkest cinematic portrayal of a U.N. operation ever on the big screen". This review by the NYT explores why The Interpreter needed (or didn't need) to be shot at the UN, where "the heavily publicized United Nations setting promises an authenticity of character and plot that the movie never approaches". The 2002 Oscar-winning No Man's Land (2001 film) also features UN peacekeepers as major plot drivers, with a NYT review calling a UN blue helmet a "savage portrait of nervous bureaucratic wheeling and dealing that has little regard for the lives being gambled". My conclusion regarding big screen portrayals is that significant coverage within movie reviews exists, and when added together, they make the article GNG-compliant. Finally, there are a significant amount of documentaries and lesser-known movies which cover the "blue helmets" aspect of the UN in depth and from different angles: the Peacekeepers, Shake Hands with the Devil (2007 film), Netflix's The Siege of Jadotville (film), A Journey of a Thousand Miles: Peacekeepers, It Stays with You: Use of Force by UN Peacekeepers in Haiti (academic commentary), etc. All of these come with their own portrayal of the United Nations and UN peacekeeping, and with their own reviews. I also find myself in disagreement with the claim that this article consistutes a "violation of MOS:POPCULT", because (1) it is unclear whether it has jurisdiction over to this article, since MOS:POPCULT is a guideline regarding trivia sections, not "trivia articles", and; (2)The fact that it is written in list format and not in prose is not a "violation of MOS:POPCULT": POPCULT only says that prose is "preferable to a list format", and the fact that it is allowed is an insufficient ground for deletion. Given that multiple in-depth reviews about portrayals of the the United Nations exist, my conclusion is that this article complies with POPCULT and the GNG. Pilaz (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly does not comply with the guidelines, WP:NOT especially, and it doesn't matter whether we're talking about trivia sections or trivia articles (the latter are usually content splits of the former, anyway). I haven't looked at all of your sources as of this moment, but, if there's a feeling that something can be made out of them, the current iteration of the article isn't needed. NB the various video game and music entries which are unlikely to ever receive any sort of meaningful commentary, and that your sources seem to be heavily focused on film and, more specifically, peacekeeping forces. I can see a problem with this being kept now and not being improved for 10 years because efforts were made only to find sources and not to figure out a way to actually write an article with them. Consider that draftifying or simply starting from scratch, for which there is precedent, are options on the table, and that no one who voted delete wants to prevent a prose article on the subject from being written. Avilich (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, WP:NOT can and should be fixed through the regular WP:BRD cycle. I don't see a point in blowing everything up when we can simply remove the information that is currently unsourced and that you consider trivial: it is far less time-consuming and more likely to lead to the preservation of notable information. If it's broken, WP:FIXIT; and I remain of the opinion that deletion is not meant for cleanup. Pilaz (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The very concept of this article is flawed as it purports to be an indiscriminate listing of all appearances of the UN in popular culture, rather than actually discuss the institution in that setting. It doesn't follow that your proposal is less time-consuming since time is obviously needed to sort out the entries, which should not have been added in a non-policy-compliant fashion to begin with. "Not cleanup" is, of course, an essay, whereas an article failing NOT and IINFO to a sufficient extent will be in many cases a reason for deletion. I'm also not very convinced that your very specific reviews of individual movies, many/most of them concerning apparently peacekeeping forces, will contribute much to demonstrating notability, especially as the article remains fundamentally the same even after recent edits. Avilich (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that this article is a list and that it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If we follow your logic regarding your notability concerns, WP:LISTN would apply here. LISTN makes it clear that there need to be sources covering the subject as a whole, so for the sake of this experiment let's exclude the movie reviews I brought into the fold. Even when excluding specific citations such as movie reviews, there are multiple, reliable and independent sources that cover the topic holistically and satisfy LISTN: (1) the previously-cited Diaz article on E-IR, which is commonly agreed upon by both delete and keep votes to be notable (e.g. Piotrus's comment in favor of soft deletion on notability grounds, which backs the notability given by Diaz's article); (2) three pages under the subsection "The UN in Popular Culture" in Donald Langmead's Icons of American Architecture From the Alamo to the World Trade Center (2009, pp. 396-398), which discusses the image of the UN in a selected few movies and comics, along with the role of the UN building in some of them (it is an architecture book after all); (3) This academic article (in French) by Nabil Hajjami, published in the Law and Criminology Journal of the Free University of Brussels, entitled "images and representations of the United Nations in sci-fi literature", which covers how the UN is represented in sci-fi literature, a clearly voluminous part of this article; (4) This 2014 "places of pop culture" encyclopedia by Gladys L. Knight dedicates two pages to the representation of the United Nations Headquarters in popular culture. Of course, other more narrow coverage of the interlinkage of the UN and pop culture exists: Secretary General Boutros-Boutros Ghali being described as an unlikely pop culture celebrity [8], SecGen Kofi Annan also inviting himself into "pop culture moments"[9], another academic view at how the premier French spy book series depicts the UN and legal questions surrounding the UN [10], and most recently the speech by BTS at the UN General Assembly have generated a lot of coverage [11] [12]. Even outspoken critics of the UN recognise its pop-culture appeal: Mark D. Alleyne considered "celebrity diplomacy" to be "another dimension of a U.N. propaganda" [13]. Your concerns about WP:INDISCRIMINATE should therefore be assuaged by the full compliance of this article with WP:LISTN - and I still argue that it doesn't matter, because this article was never meant to be a list and can be written to prose by editors, and at any rate the gold standard is the GNG, which this article will easily meet. Pilaz (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pilaz for your wonderful and detailed analysis. There is so much playing defense when these nice historical pages are aimed at for deletion, I only wish there were more editors like you who both "get it" and take the time to explain the quality of the page to others. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What Pilaz actually proposed is not too dissimilar from what TompaDompa has been doing, yet your attitudes to each seem very different. Avilich (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TNT. I don't doubt this is a viable subject for an article, but it would require a total rewrite to accomplish that goal. The current version is entirely fictional cruft and should be removed._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are basing your opinion on two essays. Closers should be required to ignore the words 'cruft', 'fancruft', 'TNT', or any other reasoning based on an essay. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TNT does cite policy-based deletion reasons though, and words like 'cruft' are often a reference to a fact that an article fails WP:NOT or that there is too much trivia, which are legitimate editorial concerns. Avilich (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TNT is worth as much as Deletion is not cleanup - you can point to it to back your rationale, but at the end of the day if you don't justify its inclusion with respect to established policies or guidelines it amounts to a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Question to User:Zxcvbnm: if "the current version is entirely fictional cruft and should be removed", why is it a "viable subject for an article"? Conversely, if it is a "viable subject for an article", why would it "require a total rewrite", instead of a regular cleanup within Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle? Pilaz (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT implies that the article content is useless, but the article name and subject are not. That is to say, if the entire content of the article were deleted and rewritten from scratch, then it would be suitable for the encyclopedia, and the person citing TNT would be inclined to vote keep. However, if no one wishes to fix the issues with the article, it should be relegated to a section in the main article until such time as someone comes along and writes an encyclopedic one. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal removal of people from the United States[edit]

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

This is an essay masquerading as an encyclopedic article. The lede is a clear use of WP:OR as it WP:SYNTH various WP:PRIMARY court cases to present extraordinary claim that illegally deporting is a capital crime. Also a violation of WP:NPOV as presents one novel interpretation of various laws and cases Slywriter (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Slywriter (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 15:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. WP:DEL-REASON #14 + WP:NOTESSAY. JBchrch talk 15:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and a lack of secondary sourcing on this topic as a whole. I don't see what material or topic here is different in a notability sense from IIRAIRA or Deportation and removal from the United States. What is here is mostly OR, and while it might make for a great journal note idea it's not suitable as an article. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The above users are ordinary laypersons (they don't know anything about illegal deportation from the United States). The article is sufficiently sourced, those are not primary but irrefutable secondary reliable sources. An article like this one does not even need a source, the several news reports cited in the external links are enough. Putting commonly-known facts such as "Washington, D.C. is the capital of the United States" does not need to be referenced. Every sentence in the article is a commonly-known fact. Those wanting to delete the article probably think that no illegal deportation has ever occurred, but the article provides indisputable evidence to the contrary. 18 U.S.C. § 242 and the FBI website say that if a government official illegally deports a person from the United States he or she could be charged with a crime. That section of law entails capital punishment. If you don't like it that's your personal problem. It's useless to try to hide the facts. WP:CENSOR ("Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so.").--Libracarol (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Libracarol Don't make assumptions about the background of other editors. In any case, any material should stand on its own. JBchrch talk 17:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought you were law students. :)--Libracarol (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should know the audience for this site. – The Grid (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I got confused after viewing many users' profiles.--Libracarol (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with reservations. The article certainly has the problems identified above, but they are fixable. A Google scholar search of "deportation of citizens" shows many secondary sources are available, for someone with the werewithal to address this. There is no deadline. Sennalen (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check those when I have more time. I enjoy this topic and want others to know about it.--Libracarol (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would appear to reference texts of laws, simply interpreting them. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the title of this essay ("article") is problematic. It's describing deportations that are legal under US law. If kept it the title should be changed to "somebody somewhere else in the world said that US law is illegal" and see if that survives as an article.North8000 (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's exclusively about those who have been deported illegally, which the government aknowledged.--Libracarol (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article title alone, screams PoV. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What title do you believe is better? Incorrect deportation? Mistaken deportation? Erroneous deportation? Wrongful deportation?--Libracarol (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:TNT, there's just nothing policy-compliant here worth saving. Someone else can start again properly if they want to (although I don't see how this is a notable topic separate from our other articles about immigration and deportation). Levivich 18:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best this could ever be made into is a POV fork. Qwirkle (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is very POV and does not talk about anything concrete concerning the mecanisms of deportation or real cases. The article seems to me that it could only be a dictionary definition at best, or a POV essay at worst. Safyrr 22:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the writer of and contributor to legal articles here. Legislation should be described, with objective commentary added to flavour the article and make it more interesting to read. Articles about law or police should not have an “angle”. This article needs WP:TNT - Such-change47 (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the person that originally suggested taking this to AFD at the no original research noticeboard. My concern is that the title is inherently POV. To have such a strong title (this idea that deportations, which are normally a legal process carried out by law enforcement, can be illegal), it definitely needs to be backed up with top notch prose and sources. This article isn't it. The sources are all primary, and the prose is POV. If this idea is notable and is kept, this article needs to be TNTd to something like Illegal removal of people from the United States is a concept in United States law. It was first established in [bill/case][citations] and can occur when [concrete examples]. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content violates WP:SYNTH, and the article is a WP:POVFORK of related articles such as Deportation and removal from the United States. (WP:PRIMARY has also been mentioned, but I would say it is not the root of the problem. Court cases are not categorically primary, and articles can and do cite courts directly for significant parts of their content. The problem is the way they are combined to selectively emphasize points and reach an overall narrative in a way which the sources do not. Primary or secondary, using sources in this manner violates WP:SYNTH.) Adumbrativus (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This article has been mentioned at ANI. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Libracarol original research. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Adumbrativus.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Deportation and removal from the United States. MarioGom (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails WP:GNG

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scorz[edit]

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

Sources are self published, mainly primary and fail WP:GNG. Xclusivzik (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've checked all the interviews Scorz gave to media outlets^[1]^[2]^[3] (which were my sources to write this article) and they are editorial. One of the sources is from DJ Magazine which is a notable media outlet as well. Based on that, the article isn't based on primary sources and has no original research. I did however used some other extra sources such as the official site of the record label Scorz is signed to ^[4] in order to help determine his discography but I've also used individual sources from Beatport^[5] for each musical piece which is the main source. I also used 1001tracklists which is a tertiary source to determine some of the notable artists supporting his music because they all can be used as an aid to find multiple other sources since all of them have links to the artists official podcasts, sites and so on, but, I just edited it and added new secondary sources (from Apple Podcasts) on top of it. As for WP:GNG, Scorz is notable. Here's some examples: Just search for "Scorz" on google news and you will find articles about him and/or mentioning him and his music. He officially remixed musical pieces from successful artists in the dance music industry such as Afrojack,^[6]^[7] Lost Frequencies^[8]^[9] and DubVision.^[10]^[11], his music is played by grammy winner/nominated artists such as Tiësto ^[12]^[13]^[14] and Armin van Buuren ^[15]^[16]^[17]. Has over 150.000 monthly listeners on Spotify ^[18]. Is featured on a major-scale dance music event A State Of Trance 1000 - Utrecht ^[19]^[20] and is signed to a notable record label (Armada Music) ^[21]. AnderNigro (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AnderNigro (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

AnderNigro, interviews given by the artist are primary sources, because it is the subject talking about himself. Being played by famous DJs doesn't establish notability (some of my DJing friends have had their tracks played by better known DJs, but that doesn't make them notable) and remixing other peoples records doesn't make you notable either, unless there is some in-depth independent coverage of that remix. Richard3120 (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Richard3120, thank you for the feedback! Yea I gotcha, yet, the sources I mentioned aren't interviews only, they are a mix between information by the own editor, where you can get all the information needed to have this article written (It's a really simple article, there's not too many details about the artist) and excerpts from an interview. Regarding notability, even if a play and remixing doesn't make someone notable there are another factors I mentioned above (150k Spotify montlhy listeners, millions of streams, being featured on an event for an audience of over 30k people and news articles about artist's music release) that I feel is something notable, sorry if I'm wrong.

AnderNigro (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's one of the sources I mentioned above = ^[22]. Most part of it is editorial text about the subject, you can write the same article I did with this source only, however I used several ones.

AnderNigro (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Scorz at DJ Mag Brazil". djmagbr.com.
^ "Scorz interview to EletroVibez". eletrovibez.com.
^ "Scorz interview to WonderlandInRave". wonderlandinrave.com.
^ https://www.armadamusic.com/artists/scorz
^ https://www.beatport.com/
^ "Scorz remix for "Back To Life" on Armada Music". armadamusic.com. Retrieved 12 October 2021.
^ "Scorz remix for "Back To Life" on Apple Music". music.apple.com. Retrieved 17 December 2021.
^ "Scorz remix for "Don't Leave Me Now" on Apple Music". music.apple.com. Retrieved 17 December 2021.
^ "Scorz remix for "Don't Leave Me Now" on Armada Music". armadamusic.com. Retrieved 12 October 2021.
^ "Scorz remix for "Back To Life" on Apple Music". music.apple.com. Retrieved 17 December 2021.
^ "Scorz remix for "Back To Life" on Armada Music". armadamusic.com. Retrieved 12 October 2021.
^ https://www.grammy.com/grammys/artists/ti%C3%ABsto/12687
^ "Diamonds (Scorz Remix) played at Tiësto's Club Life - 766 on Apple Podcasts". podcasts.apple.com. Retrieved 17 December 2021.
^ "Tiësto's Club Life - 759 on Apple Podcasts". podcasts.apple.com. Retrieved 17 December 2021.
^ https://www.grammy.com/grammys/artists/armin-van-buuren/17785
^ "Shadow by Scorz & Diana Miro aired on Armin van Buuren's A State Of Trance - 1036". astateoftrance.com. Retrieved 18 October 2021.
^ "A State Of Trance - 1036 tracklist at Trance Attack". tranceattack.net. Retrieved 17 December 2021.
^ https://open.spotify.com/artist/2WSmz7fObdRrG8ZTXz7kcn?si=MFiUrQAkRCO7_20YWVXGpQ
^ https://www.iq-mag.net/2021/02/asot1000-sells-55000-tickets-four-hours/
^ https://europebookings.com/festival/a-state-of-trance-utrecht/
^ https://www.armadamusic.com/artists/scorz
^ https://eletrovibez-com.translate.goog/scorz-brasileiro-que-conquistou-a-armada-music-e-armin-van-buuren-conta-sobre-sua-historia-novidades-e-mais/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=pt-BR&_x_tr_pto=nui

Delete: Fails WP:SINGER and WP:GNG. The article doesn't have any independent or reliable sources covering this person in-depth. Likely another attempt to use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 05:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I think that there's now relatively broad community consensus that porn industry awards do not establish notability. Sandstein 09:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Chechik[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT & WP:BASIC; no mainstream, significant source coverage found. Porn industry sources are largey promotional/advertising; a Google news search returns mostly lad mags and clickbait sites. Previous "keep" !votes mentioned the large number of industry awards; this falls under the deprecated WP:PORNBIO criteria which are no longer enough to demonstrate notability. A GQ India profile and an article on Jezebel were also cited; however, the GQ piece is mostly just the "highlights" from a Reddit AMA, which is a primary source as well as being at least partially user-generated, and Jezebel is normally considered an opinion source; WP:RS/P#Jezebel specifically cautions against using it for contentious claims about living people. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC) edited 14:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has too many promotional sources, not enough reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete In my opinion Chechik is notable in that she won Female Performer of the Year in her industry. I don't expect her to win an Emmy any time soon. Though I'm inclined to agree that the sources aren't reliable. I kept seeing stuff in Spanish about bone injuries incurred on set. If reliable sources come about in the future, I do see a feasible article. I saw something about her going to Drexel University to become a doctor. Interesting. Trillfendi (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course she's not going to win an Emmy, that's a different field with their own awards. She's won 11 "Oscars" in her chosen acting genre. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She's got an article in Bild.de, but it's just relating what she talked about in her podcast. She's almost at the notability standard with a gazillion hits in Gnews. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Bild is considered a tabloid and a discussion at RSN notes a tendency to creat content to boost readership. Not therefore an RS. Ghits doesn't count to notability at all. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete previous claims of notable sourcing failed to substantially evidence good quality sources and I stand by my nomination for AFD1. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are a few sources covering her. América 24: [14], Caracol Radio: [15], El Tiempo (Colombia):[16] Thriley (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some more sources. German Rolling Stone: [17], il Fatto Quotidiano: [18] Thriley (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More: El País (Uruguay): [19], Radio Continental: [20], Mediafax: [21] Thriley (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anything with lesiones óseas is talking about bone injuries. Trillfendi (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thriley, these amount to name-drops and interviews. Not relevant. Zaathras (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : tabloids, namedropping mentions, and interviews. Zaathras (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage I have found in notable publications demonstrates her global notability. I think there is plenty of material to further improve the article. I want to note that this article has been viewed 72,042 times in the last 30 days. Seems like it would be best to keep and improve than to delete as this is clearly someone of interest to readers. Thriley (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pageview statistics don't necessarily indicate that a page is encyclopedic. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sourcing is primarily AVN and or other adult film news sources in the article. What I found through my due diligence are trashy magazines on top of trashy gossipy magazines discussing her being a wrestling ring girl, being the survivor of domestic abuse, and wanting to sleep with her fans. If she had received more mainstream coverage, etc, I could be open minded, but, this subject doesn't qualify for WP:GNG nor WP:BASIC. Missvain (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has won 11 (eleven, XI) AVN awards, the Oscars of her field. Nominating significant pages in an individual's chosen field of endeavor like these seems a waste of editors time. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, avn awards do not count towards notability and are not oscars as people pay attention to oscar wins and outside the porn ecosystem no one cares who gets what award. Also equating something that you can win 11 times without garnering real world coverage with something that great actors or directors often don’t get or only get once in a career is an intellectually stupid argument. PORNBIO was depreciated because arguments like this still don’t guarantee GNG level coverage. This is a BLP and it must therefore be properly sourced. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Real world coverage"? Where does the porn industry exist, in a Doctor Strange between-shifts time non-dimension? I'm not into porn industry things myself, or else I would have won half-a-dozen of these, but it's a "thing" that Wikipedia covers and this lady seems to have excelled at it bless her heart. Some editors seem to want to censor Wikipedia, let's hope not on a learned closer's watch. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are not be casting aspersions with that last comment. I’m just going to leave it for the closing admin to note that your argument was explicitly rejected by the community when it was decided to depreciate PORNBIO. Applying the GNG and community standards for content is not censorship. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The community" is whomever found out about a discussion at a point in time and then took an interest in it. Common sense and IAR would say that not allowing the major porn industry award help shape who and who isn't notable in that industry seems like censorship to me, plain and simple, which is not allowed on Wikipedia (full disclosure, I know someone who once sat next to Jenna Jamieson in a row of pool chairs). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that the community got it wrong then feel free to propose the restoration of pornbio - which was removed by this discussion that took place on the talk page of an official guideline that is watched by 838 different editors, 104 of which followed recent edits. Its disrespectful to argue that this isn’t a valid depreciation and that we should IAR ignore it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup AVN awards, etc - do not merit inclusion. We did that once, it was a hot mess. I also worked with Jenna Jameson... doesn't mean I get a Wikipedia article about it. Missvain (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not really that sure about the award wins since I don't follow that kind of thing, but I'm sure there's Emmy, Grammy, Webby, Game Developers Choice Awards, Etc. Etc. people out there who don't have articles and the notability of whatever she has won "IRL" is pretty questionable anyway. Just like I'd say the Game Developers Choice Awards is. No offense to her or people who have won either. Most fields have some kind of awards though and 99% of the time they are extremely meaningless. So it's down the quality of references. Which in this case is clearly inadequate. Sorry, but that's life. I'll be happy to change my vote to keep if or when they materialize though. In the meantime, Merry Christmas. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Act 1990[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Original reason for PROD: "This is just a copy/paste of a statute, not an encyclopedia article." I don't think it's G12 for CSD because I think a British statute can be copied. Singularity42 (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I didn't do a thorough WP:BEFORE, but my quick Google search suggests that this doesn't pass WP:GNG. But even if it does, in the current state that it's in, might as well delete per WP:TNT. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 16:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm with the PROD. There's no point keeping this as it is, whether the topic is notable or not. It's simply not an encyclopedia article. -- asilvering (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki. per Asilvering. I have no opinion about whether the topic is notable, but this is not an encyclopaedia article. If Wikisource takes British statutes (I have no idea) then it could be transwikied there. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Margarida de Ávila[edit]

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

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. There are currently no sources for this one sentence stub. I can not find any reliable sources online. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: Is it asserted that none of the sources in the Portuguese Wikipedia article are reliable? PamD 09:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah: the "expand" link at the top of the article leads to the unsourced Spanish wiki article; the Portuguese wiki article is very different. PamD 09:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

not necessarily for establishing notability. Had a career in glass design, is mentioned in the Portuguese Culture Institute's round-up Pintura e escultura em Portugal, 1940-1980. I still think it is a candidate for deletion. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. pt:Margarida de Ávila says that she was part of the 1st and 2d Exposições de design português (description of 2d one here). These look like they could be significant exhibitions. But I don't see anything else that looks like good coverage and the rest of the sources in ptwiki are quite poor. Plus this is a literal one-sentence stub so it's not as if we'd be losing much by deleting and starting over if better sources emerge in the future. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, 1st and 2d Exposições de design português do look like pretty big deals ie. describing the 2nd event - "In the opinion of the Portuguese historian Rui Afonso Santos (2003), it was the most significant event in the field of Portuguese design to date." (page 5) (incidently, here is a list of the pieces exhibited) her work still being exhibitied - "Pop & Tutti Frutti" (2019), exhibited at Galeria de Março (see p.89 of this), unfortunately cannot find much else. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate provided sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the references. In the mentioned article ("Design Glass Objects: The Portuguese Panorama"), the exhibition is listed as important in Portugal, but our artist is only listed in the footnote as exhibiting there. "Pop & Tutti Fruiti" is a show mentioned in a blog, and again Ávila is listed as an exhibitor, but not featured. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sourcing presented here, nor in my due diligence, helps this subject qualify for WP:NARTIST. Blog spot is also not a reliable source and one exhibition at a major museum doesn't qualify one for WP:NARTIST. Missvain (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is very poorly written, not enough content and not enough references. Ginbopewz (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shusha. ✗plicit 13:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shusha State Historical and Architectural Reserve[edit]

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

Article contains no information not already at Shusha, and is written as if it is an article for the city, rather than an article for its status as a "State Historical and Architectural Reserve" - out of an 800 word article, just 50 are at all related to this status, with the rest covering the broader history of the city.

As such, it is an unneeded split, and should be deleted - while it is possible that the status meets GNG, though I have not been able to prove it, notability doesn't guarantee a stand-alone article, and at the moment there is not enough information to warrant one.

Merging is not an option, as there is no information in the current article that does not already exist in the Shusha article. BilledMammal (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shusha. The reserve is said to have been declared in 1977 (according to a category), but the article says nothing about this or the merits of it (as opposed to the city). I suspect the declaration is the equivalent of making it a Conservation Area, but we do not have articles on every Conservation area in UK. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shushi, as this spinoff from Shushi does not have much to say as a separate article but can be a paragraph in the article about the city. --Armatura (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Redirect to Shusha like above217.149.166.11 (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flynn Blackie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Behind the moors (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just added in four new article references about him, to further enhance questions on passing WP:GNG. (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC+3)
Delete. Repeated use of SEO/black hat paid sources and other junk does not help. The rest seems to be fairly trivial. I don't see the awards as being particularly notable. Kuru (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial and primary sourcing abounds, including in my due diligence. The awards don't work towards notability. WP:TOOSOON. Missvain (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Arunaye[edit]

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

Not having independent coverage. Fails WP:GNG Behind the moors (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A BEFORE search brings up interviews and sponsored posts. No evidence of significant coverage.
Princess of Ara 14:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mable (Company)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Appears to be advertising for a company, there is no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. I cannot see how this article could possibly be improved and should be deleted given even a Google search produces few results other than company reviews and its own primary business page. Such-change47 (talk) 11:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Such-change47 (talk) 11:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, can't find meaningful coverage anywhere. JonnyDKeen (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the Financial Review source by a staff reporter in reference 3 a reliable source? The other Financial Review sources are by a contributor so that would probably rule those out Atlantic306 (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article reads more like a promotional summary than anything, and not enough is presented to establish why this company is notable.TH1980 (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Aasim (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I reviewed the financial review article mentioned above. All it contains about Mable (formerly "Better Caring") is primary info, as it is comprised solely of quotes from a Mable co-founder. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, lacks in depth coverage about the company.Juggyevil (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage. 3 sources are from the same publication. Jaxarnolds (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails WP:GNG.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pranshu Chatur Lal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Hindu/Statesman/Express articles are all about memorials to his grand father. They contain a couple of sentences each about his concert as part of covering the whole series of concerts. Express article serving as the major source is credited to "Lifestyle Desk". None of it is significant enough to satisfy WP:BASIC. The ToI article is about him, but is too short, has no credited author and appears promotional. Hemanthah (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemanthah (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hemanthah (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hemanthah (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete essentially the same article that was deleted in previous afd, most sources do not mention him or if they do only in passing, no in-depth coverage, notability is not inherited from "famous" relatives. Theroadislong (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: Hello, I read your comment. This was the reasons for which the article got deleted in the first AFD discussion. After that when new coverages came, I requested to the Admin @Premeditated Chaos: who had previously closed the AFD discussion as DELETE. After that, when she had undeleted the article, she has checked everything and then only she had undeleted the article. The article is clearly passing WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. So I request you to check the previous discussions on the respective admin's talk page who had undeleted the article.Thank You Batamore (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The actual discussion tells me there was some hesitation and that you were to add better sources. What you added - kolkatamail - is from a marketing agency. Hemanthah (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemanthah: Thank you for your response. I want to let you know that other than the Kolkata mail article, I have also added TOI article. I have sent the two above mentioned articles to Premeditated Chaos before undeletion and i believe only after reading those articles she had decided to undelete the article.Thanks Batamore (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the discussion limited to the merits of the page/topic. What other editors think about it, they'll express if they wish to. Hemanthah (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Theroadislong, it's essentially the same article that was deleted in previous afd because it is the same - I undeleted it per the above talk page request. Hemanthah, I was definitely not aware that Kolkata Mail was PR/unreliable, or I would never have undeleted on the basis of the Times of India piece alone. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Hi @Premeditated Chaos: As you said Kolkata mail is a press release, Can you please let me know how to identify? It will help me to work better in other articles as well. Thank you Batamore (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hemanthah, since you're the one who identified it as problematic, can you advise what tipped you off? It'll probably be helpful for any other participants or the closer as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Batamore, About page says "What sets us apart from the other entertainment portals is". FB page carries exclusively event photos and ads like this. Sole glassdoor review is from a content writer, not a journalist. Sparse twitter page. These are from just top results from this search. Hemanthah (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

- The Hindu coverage is about his performance.
- The Hindu This article is about Pranshu's opinion on Telangana Social Welfare School of Fine Arts.
- Times Of India here in the article it's written about Pranshu's performance.
- The Hindu this article is about Pranshu's performance and about the instrument he plays.
- The Indian Express here you can see TIE mentioned him as The Prince Of Tabla and about those prestigious awards which he received.
- The Statesman about his performance in a live concert.
- Indian Talent Management from here I got his dob and some of his personal information.
-the Hindu Here is in-depth information about the subject.
- Times Of India this article is form TOI and the article is in depth.
- financial express this is from Financial express. And here you will get information about the subject.

So I think have provided enough reliable source and information about the subject. And hence the subject is meeting WP:NMUSICIAN.So I believe the subject shouldn't be deleted. Batamore (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are the same sources I analysed and found not suitable in the talk-page discussion linked above, in the exact same order and everything. The only new one is #10, the Financial Express article. Self-quoting here: "1 is about a concert for his grandfather and trivially mentions him, 2 quotes him but isn't about him, 3 has the same issue as 1, 4 is about someone else's concert that he happened to be an accompaniment for, 5 is a trivial mention ("prince of tabla" or not it doesn't go into any depth about him), 6 is probably the best so far as it actually contains a paragraph focusing on him, 7 is significant coverage but I'm dubious about the reliabilty as it's an online-only magazine, 8 is basically a scant paragraph about his performance." #9 is bylined to TNN, the TOI news agency, and looks press releasey to me now that I'm coming back to it. The new one, #10, is like #2 in that it quotes him but isn't about him. It's the same garbage sourcing as before and I'm not impressed by Batamore's attempt to snow any uninformed participants with a blizzard of poor sources that I've already told him are no good. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to have sources in The Hindu, Financial Express and TOI + is the grandson of Chatur Lal, who appears to be a renowned table player. Sohom Datta (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Who his grandfather is is irrelevant to his notability. The subject has to stand on the merits of the sourcing, which is, per my source analysis above, insufficient. In particular, you cite the Financial Express source as significant coverage, which shows you clearly didn't read it - it's a quote from him, not coverage about him, which doesn't support a claim to notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm convinced that the subject meets WP:GNG - even with my due diligence including newspapers.com and his collection being held at NYU.

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Kolm[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus. Fails WP:AUTHOR . No notable publications. No major awards LibStar (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll admit that when I first looked at this article I thought it was a delete. However, when I started doing media and book searches it turned out Ron Kolm pops up everywhere. Yes, the original article was too long and full of unencyclopedic fluff (no, Wikipedia doesn't need hundreds of words covering all the bookstores he's worked at). However, his work as a writer, editor, and archivist has been well documented in various news media sources such as The New York Times along with books focused on literary criticism such as A Concise Companion to Postwar American Literature and Culture, Urban Space and Late Twentieth-Century New York Literature: Reformed Geographies, and Up Is Up, But So Is Down New York's Downtown Literary Scene, 1974-1992. In addition, his writings have been published in notable places such as The Outlaw Bible of American Poetry and Between C & D: New Writing from the Lower East Side Fiction Magazine (released by Penguin Books, a major publisher). I have extensively reworked the article to trim a lot of the fluff while also making it more encyclopedic and adding a ton of citations. As stated in Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people under creative professionals, notability can be determined by "multiple independent periodical articles" and there are definitely enough independent articles and books discussing this subject to prove notability. --SouthernNights (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KeepRon Kolm's work is collected by The Fales Library at NYU - http://dlib.nyu.edu/findingaids/html/fales/kolm/. He has a significant number of books for sale on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/s?k=ron+kolm&ref=nb_sb_noss_2 He is a principal editor of many Unbearables collections including "The Unbearables Worst Book I Ever Read," "The Unbearables Big Book Sex" and "The Unbearables From Somewhere to Nowhere."In 2013 he received an Acker Award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayester (talk • contribs) 17:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC) — Kayester (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagidari Sankalp Morcha[edit]

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

I nominate this article not because I necessarily think it should be deleted, but because I wish to have a consensus on this matter.

This article is about a small political alliance in Uttar Pradesh. Its constituents are notable political parties in their own right, but this alliance does not receive their notability per WP:NOTINHERITED. It did receive some news coverage on its formation, but it didn't contest any elections, and disbanded less than a year after it formed. Should it be included? YttriumShrew (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I concur that while there are some passing sources, most appear like press releases - puff pieces, etc.

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cayon High School[edit]

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

The only reference in the article is an extremely trivial piece about some students of the school winning a 10 day training course. Also all I could find in a WP:BEFORE was some WP:MILL primary videos of their student podcast and random stuff about their football team. None of it helps with establishing notability though. Adamant1 (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there's a truly absurd number of news articles mentioning the school, but not very many of them actually establish notability. Having said that, from the sources that I've gleaned this seems to be a rather important high school. Here are some articles that might help for notability: Mentions Cayon High School Band playing for Royal Visit, Cayon High School having a mold controversy, More coverage of the mold controversy, A feud between students of the high school and the local town. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 22:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some more information and references to the article. I think this could scrape by although yes, none of the articles are particularly in depth. I also think its in our interest to keep this school article given how little we have on schools in this country. NemesisAT (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it really matters but there's only like 10 schools in the country to start with. So there's probably never going to be that much in Wikipedia about schools there. We could just as easily fit a summary of them all in Saint_Kitts_and_Nevis#Education, which is pretty much non-existent right now, then have two badly sourced articles with almost zero chance of there ever being any more then that. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The incidents and dress code say nothing about the notability of the school. I can not find any WP:SIGCOV. The Banner talk 23:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Timoshenko[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Pridemanty (talk) 09:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pridemanty (talk) 09:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you explain the reason? What needs to be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marisha734277 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is nothing that sets the subject apart from normal participants in his field, or shows that he has widespread recognition in the field, and gets significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. XOR'easter (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources, I've been to about as many conferences as he has. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a place for a CV. --hroest 16:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - however I do not think the nom provided sufficient reasons. Merely pointing to WP:GNG is not an argument for AFD. The reasons it does not meet WP:GNG are because this article contains no reliable independent sources that would constitute significant coverage, and is not notable in any other respect. Further, Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion or running a CV, which is what this article appears to constitute. Such-change47 (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheriff (Russian group)[edit]

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

Fails GNG lacks reliable sources Pridemanty (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pridemanty (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet verifiability policy and appears unable to do so Such-change47 (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly and most importantly, the article cites no reliable source coverage whatsoever to establish the band's notability per WP:NMUSIC — it was "referenced" solely to YouTube copies of their own videos threaded through running body text, which is an WP:ELNO violation and does not represent notability-building sourcing. Secondly, the tone here is highly advertorialized, not neutral. Thirdly, the creator has been movewarring over this, with this being the second time the article has ended up back in mainspace without being properly approved by an AFC reviewer, as the creator has repeatedly either copy-pasted or pagemoved this themselves without waiting for a reviewer to accept it, which is also not acceptable process.
As well, it needs to be noted that the creator has attempted to remove the AFD template from the page, so this will have to be monitored.
In the event that this band actually can be demonstrated as genuinely notable properly, the article would still need to be so massively overhauled for both sourcing and writing tone that WP:TNT applies regardless. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

USS APL-29[edit]

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

Another one of these non notable ships, sourced to fan sites and with "awards" which were given out by the millions. Nothing better could be found online[22], so I nominated it for prod deletion, but for some reason this was reverted as "too soon", which is not really a helpful reason (the ship won't suddenly become notable in the next few days, and the article creator already moved on to other articles). Fram (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Perhaps a list of APL-17 class Barracks Ships may be worthwhile. Mztourist (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although creating a list of such ships seems like a good idea. Oaktree b (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

USS APL-32[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. The awards were handed out by the millions, the sources are (good) fan sites, and nothing better could be found online[23]. ProD was removed because "too soon" (?), so an AfD it is. Fram (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. If RS can be found, then a page about the class with a listing of each ship may be worthwhile. Mztourist (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, This is a case where if there was a class article in existence, we would be saying Merge/Redirect to.... GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I also noticed that ref #2 actually discusses a completely different ship. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suomi Herää[edit]

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

Out of scope fringe subject, article heavily edited by users with seeming links to the subject. The equivalent page on the Finnish wikipedia was deleted as well. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

USS APL-42[edit]

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

No indication why this (and probably many similar ones) would be notable. The three awards were given to millions of people and (as in this case) vessels, the two sources are basically (good) fan sites, and looking for other sources gave nothing that indicated any notability.[24]. This nomination is only for this page, as other similar ships may have some notability individually: but probably all of these need to be looked at. Fram (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks SIGCOV in RS, fails WP:GNG. WP:Before only turns up user-submitted/SPS fan websites. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Large vessel, easily meets basic ships notability criteria. Source added Lyndaship (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lyndaship: What policy are you referring to? -Indy beetle (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would appear my memory is playing tricks. I thought somewhere it said somewhere "any ship over 100 tons (by any measure) is likely to be notable" but all I can find is the project scope which says commercial ships under 100 tons are outside the scope of the project. Lyndaship (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You added a primary source, which adds nothing towards notability. If such ships which have not received significant attention from reliable independent sources "easily meet the basic ship notability criteria", then these criteria are wrong. Then again, I can't find any trace of these criteria, they don't seem to be an accepted guideline anyway. Fram (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - True but part of your nomination was that its only sources were fan sites. The NVR is not a fansite Lyndaship (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, a reliable source which proves the ship actually exists is not the same as demonstrating that it is notable. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A clear cut case IMO. This very evidently does not satisfy WP:GNG. Even the first two pages of Google fail to show any notability, which says a lot about whether Wikipedia should contain it. As this is an Encyclopaedia and not a collection of every fact ever to exist, I do not think this article should remain as its lack of notability means it is simply not of Encyclopaedic value - Such-change47 (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

not being able to find any reference in Google for some subject where one would expect references there is a reasonable ground for suggesting deletion, but not being able to find one in the first two pages is not. It's not an adequate search. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not able to find significant coverage from independent RS. For the record, the most relevant notability essay (NB: not guideline) seems to be WP:NVEHICLE which states that "Almost all individual vehicles are not notable" -Ljleppan (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that of the 100s of millions of individual vehicles in the world almost all are non-notable, but perhaps 1% are, which would be a million. That's not an arguement that this ship isn't among them. Capital ships often are. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying this is a capital ship? Clearly it is not. Intothat darkness 22:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think DGG was only trying to point out that many ships are indeed quite notable, and so NVEHICLE isn't really applicable here. The main thing is that battleships and aircraft carriers are often extensively discussed in RS, especially if they've fought in wars, unlike this dime-a-dozen barracks ship. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and that was my assumption as well. I was just trying to get clarification so other voters weren't confused. I could see a possible class article for these ships, but having articles for individual barracks ships...not so much. Intothat darkness 16:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC. If RS can be found, then a page about the class with a listing of each ship may be worthwhile. Mztourist (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

India national under-20 football team results[edit]

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

Results pages exist for senior national teams, but only for three junior teams; Bangladesh, India and Indonesia, and I have now nominated each of these, because extending the results service to junior level fails WP:NOTSTATS. Junior teams do not receive the same amount of coverage and their players are not presumed notable. Geschichte (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Geschichte, judging by your statement, did you intend to nominate Bangladesh national under-23 football team results as well? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried to clean out a category with three pages in it. It turns out there are some more U19 pages too, like Kosovo, Bhutan, Malaysia. The weight is very heavily on Asia, which I'm connecting to several AFDs on crufty topics such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1988 AFC Youth Championship qualification and its siblings.
Seeing as the U23 page is uncategorized, it's a more sneaky case, but I found U23 pages for South Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam, India, Hong Kong, Myanmar, Australia, Palestine, Uzbekistan, Iraq etc. There seems to be a difference in that U23 teams compete in some tournaments which may include senior teams as well. To give a succinct answer; no, I don't intend to take on U23 yet. Geschichte (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTSTATS. We do not need junior results. Giant Snowman 09:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTSTATS. Junior sport rarely meets the notability level required. Nigej (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia national under-19 football team results[edit]

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

Results pages exist for senior national teams, but only for three junior teams; Bangladesh, India and Indonesia, and I have now nominated each of these, because extending the results service to junior level fails WP:NOTSTATS. Junior teams do not receive the same amount of coverage and their players are not presumed notable. Geschichte (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTSTATS. We do not need junior results. Giant Snowman 09:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that this violates NOTSTATS and that it's below the level that we should be covering to this level of detail. The games are not as widely covered as the seniors and I could find little in the way of coverage, especially when it comes to the inconsequential friendly matches against the likes of Kyung Hee University and Hajduk Split Academy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan national under-20 football team results[edit]

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

Results pages exist for senior national teams, but only for three junior teams; Bangladesh, India and Indonesia, and I have now nominated each of these, because extending the results service to junior level fails WP:NOTSTATS. Junior teams do not receive the same amount of coverage and their players are not presumed notable. Geschichte (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTSTATS. We do not need junior results. Giant Snowman 09:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTSTATS. Junior sports are rarely notable. Nigej (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon King (dinosaur skull)[edit]

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

Clear fail of WP:NOTNEWS, even less notable than Big John (dinosaur). There are only a handful of reliable sources covering the skull, which are all pre sale hype from around the same time in 2015, which fails WP:SUSTAINED. There is no follow-up coverage, which implies that the specimen failed to sell. At least for Big John, it was the 3rd most expensive dinosaur skeleton ever sold, what exactly is notable about this specimen? There is already an entry in the "Planned to be auctioned" section of the List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction article covering this specimen. At best, this article deserves to be redirected there. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should note here that I suspect the creation of the article by someone who has a COI with a relationship to people who own or owned the skull, I have presented evidence for why I think this is the case at COIN Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as AfC reviewer: "largest skull ever found" is the claim to notability in the article/coverage. Rusalkii (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in Guinness World Records' coverage of Big John, Paleontologist Philip J. Currie says of the skull of Big John: Over the years I have looked at lots of Triceratops fossils, but this is unquestionably the largest Triceratops skull I have ever seen. The claim of "largest skull ever" for Dragon King is a promotional claim that was meant to hype up the (seemingly failed) sale, and is unverified. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS isn't really applicable here since this is a physical thing that doesn't apply for 1E. Goes by standard WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The only coverage the object has received is in the context of it being attempted to be sold at auction, an event. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's still not qualifying under NOTNEWS, since again, it's an object. The claim to notbility isn't the auction, but the purported size. This does nothing to either diminish or aid this AfD, it's just a minor correction for future reference. Curbon7 (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, your intepretation is not universal, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Big_John_(dinosaur), where the delete voters arguments for WP:NOTNEWS were described as "convincing" by the closer, and that specimen has way more coverage than this one, with a small amount of coverage of the assembly many months prior to the sale. Big John was also described as the "biggest triceratops skeleton", so same difference really. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This isn't about an event, it's about an object. The object is notable for being the largest ever found to date, and has references supporting its notability. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply, nor does WP:RECENTISM. I would also have !voted to keep Big John, I suspect if I'd seen it and it had references supporting a "largest (kind of dinosaur skeleton)" claim. I mean, Sue gets her own article for a similar reason. I don't see any reason to delete these either. Fieari (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's claimed by the discoverers that it is, because they were trying to sell the fossil. This article is also likely promotional. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sue has its own article because it's large, relatively complete, and has been (and continues to be) studied in the scientific literature. By contrast, Dragon King is a heavily reconstructed skull that is likely to stay in private hands. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm the author of the page - there is no COI here as I am not trying to sell the skull privately, nor hype it up pre-auction. It is already owned privately and I don't know of any plans to re-sell it. I also do not own it. It deserves a page purely because it is the biggest skull ever found - bigger than Big John (if you look at the lengths). Guinness probably weren't aware of this skull when Big John claimed the title. This is fact and surely that is the kind of thing that is useful to wiki and should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maudjohnson90 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maudjohnson90: Thanks for the response Maud. Given that you appear to be privy to non-public information about the skull, can you explain what happened during the 2015 Evolve LTD auction? Did it fail to meet the reserve price? Hemiauchenia (talk)

Merge into List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction. Article amounts to a one-paragraph stub if irrelevant information is removed. Dubious claims of size (note the WP:SYNTH) from one source for one event, likely that we'll never hear about it again. Fails WP:GNG. Better serviced by a discussion in context of other dinosaurs sold at auction. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction per comment above. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction. The majority of claims made in this article are unsourced or original synthesis, and the few other claims are all sourced to a handful of articles about the planned auction of the specimen. The details pertaining to the discovery and excavation of the specimen are the kinds of details that could be found for thousands of dinosaur specimens. It's obviously absurd to use the argument "this is the largest Triceratops specimen, so it's notable" for two different specimens—at most one of them can be, and in this case we have no more than the word of the fossil dealer to go on. If you believe this is the largest Triceratops skull, I have a bridge to sell you. The handful of claims about this specimen that are actually relevant and adequately sourced are already included in the list of auctioned dinosaurs article. All arguments made against keeping "Big John" apply here, except far more strongly because this article is even more weakly sourced. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per above. Little reason for short articles about single specimens, especially if they're up for sale. FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction as per above. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Information put out by people trying to sell something is questionably reliable at best, even more so when the skull has never been studied by paleontologists. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: I've got no idea what happened at the auction, I wasn't aware of the skull then. I presume it didn't sell, as there is no hammer price listed. Also someone mentioned above that the skull is 'heavily reconstructed' but it isn't, it is over 95% complete, which is v. v. complete for a skull. There is an accompanying bone map by Barry James, who is a paleontologist who regularly reconstructs fossils, which proves this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maudjohnson90 (talk • contribs)

I assume that it's this Barry James: [25] "Commercial paleontologist" is probably the most generous description possible for him. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, without reference to its size None of the claims about its size being the largest are reliable. The expert cited in the RS even admits as such According to Pittman, it’s difficult to ascertain whether it is actually the largest. ”To my knowledge, the up-to-date dataset one would need to know this does not exist in the peer-reviewed scientific journal article format that scientists use.” Thus, I support merging but without referencing this. Perhaps saying it is of significantly above-average size would be a good way to go about it.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable to simply say that the auctioneers called it "the largest". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Durondeau pear[edit]

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

Neither of the sources in the article appear to be reliable. Based off of my search for other sources online, this does not appear to pass WP:GNG. This also is not a unique species and is not eligible for inclusion under the principles outlined in WP:NSPECIES. As a result, I'd propose that this be either redirected to pear or deleted outright. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This variety is supposedly from Belgium; might sources exist in Dutch, French, or German? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep - I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt towards non-english language sources existing. If we could get a Belgian wikipedian to do a quick google search for us, that'd be one thing, but until then, I'm fine with leaving it up for now. Fieari (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC) Edit: I'm fully satisfied now. Removing "weak" from my !vote, full keep now. Fieari (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, Belgian Wikipedian (and originator of the page, so of course I'd say Keep) here. I admit didn't know about this variety until I moved to Belgium. Anyway, links: official [26] Wallonian agronomy research body's agricultural heritage site: https://rwdf.cra.wallonie.be/fr/patrimoine-fruitier/varietes/durondeau-0 https://www.mediaservice.be/sites/default/files/publicatie-files/VB_Fruit_0.pdf from the Flemish side of things, from an agricultural research org in Hasselt [27] summary of pear production (on page 6) showing that (to my surprise and disappointment given their deliciousness) they're not grown in large quantities. But there's a couple of reasonably official links for you. Pseudomonas_(talk) 15:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than a few sources in French, under "Beurré Durondeau", a very old pear variety seems to be common in the 19th Century. Page 48 https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Guide_pratique_de_l_amateur_de_fruits/qiB-AAAAIAAJ?hl=fr&gbpv=1&dq=Beurr%C3%A9+Durondeau&pg=PA234&printsec=frontcover, page 28 here https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Les_fruits_belges/AQE1AQAAIAAJ?hl=fr&gbpv=1&dq=Beurr%C3%A9+Durondeau&pg=PA28&printsec=frontcover, either won awards or was presented at horticultural events back then. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming inline citations are added. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Democratic Unionist Party#Party spokespersons at Westminster. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frontbench Team of Jeffrey Donaldson[edit]

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

I do not think that this particular group of people meets WP:NLIST. It appears to list every member of the DUP in Commons and declares them to be the frontbench team. I'm not really able to find in-depth sources that refer to the group of people in this way rather than referring them much more plainly by stating that they are the DUP members of the Parliament or as the various spokespeople. As a result, I'm inclined to redirect this article to Democratic Unionist Party#Party spokespersons at Westminster, where this can be covered in sufficient depth in the context of the DUP as a whole. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. it's only linked from one page here. Chumpih. (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mhawk10 - Just FYI: AFD is for deletion discussions so we usually don't propose redirects here unless folks chiming in suggest it as an alternative to deletion. You can propose and discuss redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Missvain: No. A proposal to blank and redirect a page can be brought to AfD, especially if the proposed WP:BLAR might be controversial. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. RFD is for discussing existing redirects and wouldn't be the place for this. Reywas92^Talk 14:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Fazle Shams Parash[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician (Chairman of Jubo League). Didn’t received any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are some references but they are either passing/trivial mentions or interview (primary). Subject has not held any political office that confers automatic inclusion rights per WP:NPOL. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —MdsShakil (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom, has not held office. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 15:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jubo League is the first youth organization of Bangladesh. It is the youth wing of Bangladesh Awami League . As a chairman of this organization this person pass WP:POLITICIAN Breekup69 (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chairman of a notable Organization led by Bangladesh Awami League obviously pass WP:POLITICIAN Mikail512 (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any WP:Meatpuppetry going on here? Above two account didn't have any contribution in the last 2 months but suddenly shows up here. Anyway, Notability isn't inherited. Please read WP:POLITICIAN again, Sheikh Fazle Shams Parash doesn't pass any of criteria listed there (didn't held international, national, or state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels, not a major local political figures, didn't received significant press coverage). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by significant news coverage this person already have enough news coverage on top ranked national daily Mikail512 (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are either passing/trivial mentions or interview (primary). Not significant press coverage. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable politician and Chairman of Jubo League which is the organization of Bangladesh Awami League, one of the largest organization of Bangladesh RokiRoyOfficial (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another account suddenly shows up here to vote! Notability isn't inherited. Please read WP:POLITICIAN. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A case of probable WP:TOOSOON and deleted without any prejudice against its recreation should he be elected. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Fredrick[edit]

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

Seems to be referenced by press releases. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N isn't met just for declaring candidacy for political office (which seems why this was created), and WP:RESUME. Nate • (chatter) 22:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic of the article is notable enough, considering all he has achieved at such young age of 24. He is also from a family that has served Nigeria well as Senator Agom Jarigbe, Deputy Governor Walter Patrick Eneji, Chief Judge Justice Maurice Eneji etc. Lyxron (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC) Reviewer note: This user created the nominated article. Missvain (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep I have gone through the article and the supporting references. I honestly think this article should be given a chance. Its notable enough to be on Wikipedia. The subject appears young but seem to have a sense of direction. If other notable media platforms are interested in his journey, then we should, except other motives not known to me.Ohanwe Emmanuel .I. (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Appears it's WP:TOOSOON for the subject. Missvain (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – he'd certainly be notable under WP:NPOL if he's elected to the Nigerian legislature, but I agree that's it's currently WP:TOOSOON. The sources currently available seem to be non-independent first-person interviews, and the keep !votes above don't seem very convincing in light of our policies and guidelines. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nomination was withdrawn, per WP:WITHDRAWN. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure) SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Full Body Massage[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage and the only review in the article is to an unreliable source. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Variety review, TV Guide review, Timeout review, short Radio Times review, also this. Geschichte (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - There are many reviews for this film online as stated above. If an article does not contain sufficient references, they can be added, rather than the article being deleted. A lack of references within an article does not mean it needs to be deleted, that should happen only if no sources exist, meaning it likely does not meet WP:GNG. Not so in this case. Such-change47 (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by a quick Google search, you can find enough coverage about the film. Passes WP:NF. Brayan ocaner (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: Per sources. Though I did use Google, search terms matter just as much. SL93 (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crooks & Straights[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced since 2010. Zero sourcing found. Claims to notability are not enough. Tone is very spammy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. --Zander251 (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if sources are found. The article seems to have potential, but must be amended to better fit Wikipedia. If this cannot happen, then Delete. Philosophy2 (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources in Gnews, there are some in Croatian (?) but not enough to justify keeping the article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "BT Robin answerphone 202B, 1989". Science Museum Group collection. Science Museum Group.

[2] "Management Services". 29. Institute of management services. 1985: 38. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[3] DrClef (11 January 2014). "Global Occult Coalition Casefiles". SCP Foundation Wiki. Retrieved 3 December 2021.

[4] "Scorz at DJ Mag Brazil". djmagbr.com.

[5] "Scorz interview to EletroVibez". eletrovibez.com.

[6] "Scorz interview to WonderlandInRave". wonderlandinrave.com.

[7] ttps://www.armadamusic.com/artists/scorz

[8] ttps://www.beatport.com/

[9] "Scorz remix for "Back To Life" on Armada Music". armadamusic.com. Retrieved 12 October 2021.

[10] "Scorz remix for "Back To Life" on Apple Music". music.apple.com. Retrieved 17 December 2021.

[11] "Scorz remix for "Don't Leave Me Now" on Apple Music". music.apple.com. Retrieved 17 December 2021.

[12] "Scorz remix for "Don't Leave Me Now" on Armada Music". armadamusic.com. Retrieved 12 October 2021.

[13] "Scorz remix for "Back To Life" on Apple Music". music.apple.com. Retrieved 17 December 2021.

[14] "Scorz remix for "Back To Life" on Armada Music". armadamusic.com. Retrieved 12 October 2021.

[15] ttps://www.grammy.com/grammys/artists/ti%C3%ABsto/12687

[16] "Diamonds (Scorz Remix) played at Tiësto's Club Life - 766 on Apple Podcasts". podcasts.apple.com. Retrieved 17 December 2021.

[17] "Tiësto's Club Life - 759 on Apple Podcasts". podcasts.apple.com. Retrieved 17 December 2021.

[18] ttps://www.grammy.com/grammys/artists/armin-van-buuren/17785

[19] "Shadow by Scorz & Diana Miro aired on Armin van Buuren's A State Of Trance - 1036". astateoftrance.com. Retrieved 18 October 2021.

[20] "A State Of Trance - 1036 tracklist at Trance Attack". tranceattack.net. Retrieved 17 December 2021.

[21] ttps://open.spotify.com/artist/2WSmz7fObdRrG8ZTXz7kcn?si=MFiUrQAkRCO7_20YWVXGpQ

[22] ttps://www.iq-mag.net/2021/02/asot1000-sells-55000-tickets-four-hours/

[23] ttps://europebookings.com/festival/a-state-of-trance-utrecht/

[24] ttps://www.armadamusic.com/artists/scorz

[25] ttps://eletrovibez-com.translate.goog/scorz-brasileiro-que-conquistou-a-armada-music-e-armin-van-buuren-conta-sobre-sua-historia-novidades-e-mais/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=pt-BR&_x_tr_pto=nui

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]