Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 19 July 21 >

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. Daniel (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Varzeshi[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above Dr Salvus 19:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems like a historical magazine that passes GNG, and the references are solid enough.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article doesn't pass WP:GNG. so it should delete. Iamfarzan (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Historic magazine which at his time had value and importance Mardetanha (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I AGREE WITH THE COMMENT ABOVE ME Esaïe Prickett (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence of notability. Digged in deep on GBOOKS and nothing either. Fails WP:N Riteboke (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in line with WP:NMEDIA, I could find no evidence of a significant award, serving a historic purpose, being authoritative or influential, being frequently cited or being a significant publication in a niche market (it perhaps comes close to fulfilling the last one) but due to the complete lack of available sourcing, it's hard to support a keep argument and, ultimately fails GNG Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:G5'd. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anan Foundation[edit]

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

Non notable NGO started in 2020 that fails to meet WP:NGO, the organization lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search predominantly links me to user generated sources or unreliable sources such as this. Celestina007 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gamjaal[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM. Only thing found besides database entries and videos was the article that it cited which only talks about how the film received a "thunderous response from the audience", which can hardly be counted as a review. No reviews or other items to support WP:NFILM were found.

PROD removed by creator, with the following note left on my talk page: "I have sourced all the articles related to that to movie,despite these why have you asked to delete the page." As I have stated, only one citation in the article and it does nothing to establish notability based on Wikipedia guidelines. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: horrid page Esaïe Prickett (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unsourced article. I think in this case the nominator should have moved it to draftspace to give the author more time to add sources if any. Since it's here already and from sources I've seen from search, it'll definitely not pass WP:NFILM. Riteboke (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 find the 'delete' arguments to be far stronger regarding our policies on inclusion, notwithstanding any potential issues regarding sockpuppetry etc. Daniel (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Dair SC[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The club is only a third-tier Iraqi club which, apparently, has never played in the Iraq FA Cup. Database websites such as Soccerway.com and Global Sports Archive don't have the club. Not even Kooora.com includes the club in their database, and they usually even have very minor teams (they only have a similarly-named Bahraini handball team). Nehme1499 21:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 21:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 21:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme1499 21:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did not understand where the problem is in the article. Is writing an article about a club that plays in the third division prohibited? Can you explain more? Saimari (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read the topic in the link you are referring to, and I did not understand what the error was in the article, where exactly is the error, please explain that. Saimari (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Saimari: The article fails point 1 of WP:GNG (it lack significant coverage). WP:INDISCRIMINATE states: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Just because the club exists, doesn't mean it merits a Wikipedia article. There is barely anything to be said of the team. Not even database websites (which on their own aren't enough to confer notability) have the club. Nehme1499 22:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two sources were mentioned in the article, the first includes respected Iraqi clubs, and the year of its establishment, including this club, and the second source represents a press article on a well-known website about the preparations of this club in the second division. The real problem is the poor press coverage of the first and second divisions in Iraq, not the club's reputation. Anyway, I don't see a good reason to delete the article.Saimari (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, we each have our own opinion. This is why I opened a discussion for deletion; other users will also voice their opinions based on the comments above. Nehme1499 23:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does this harm the admissibility of the article? I previously presented that there is a weakness in the news coverage of the first and second divisions clubs in Iraq, to the extent that it is called in Iraq (Dawri Al-Mazalim) meaning: The oppresseds league, because the press in Iraq does not care about this leagues, and does not report any news about it. But most of those clubs are old and some were Premier League champions in previous years. I think that having two sources in the article is sufficient for now, and that other people can cooperate to develop the article in the future. Saimari (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Saimari: The issue is that it doesn't seem that there is any room for improvement for the future. For the clubs currently in the Iraqi 3rd tier who have once played in the 1st tier, there is not problem. Al-Dair specifically doesn't seem to have ever participated in the first division. Nehme1499 16:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nehme1499: Why do you rule this out, Newroz was a third-tier club two years ago and was not even known, but the team this season was promoted to the Premier League (first-tier), and the article that wrote year ago here was a very small article with only three sources and was accepted, and I developed it a few days ago, see it here. Saimari (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 16:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - whilst I appreciate that there are reasons why significant coverage doesn't exist, unfortunately, without coverage, there shouldn't be an article Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment holy moly ive never seen a page this short Esaïe Prickett (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not delete I see that Saimari gave good reasons not to delete the article. Moody2019 (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GNG fail. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not delete There are many articles in Wikipedia that have been accepted in this way, and the reasons given by Saimary are acceptable, and his discussion is logical. Admosb (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not delete - the reasons he mentioned are reasonable, the article can be developed later instead of being deleted. Sambein (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Developed with which sources? If there are sources showing notability, please share Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Saimari began developing the article, and adding sources. I think that any article can be developed if we cooperate on this and think of building instead of demolishing. Sambein (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources added are two Facebook posts and a local Basra match report. None of this establishes notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not local match in Basra, but an official match in the Iraq second division. Sambein (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly says on several occasions that it's the Basra league and has no mention of being Iraq Division One, which is the 2nd tier in Iraq. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should know that the second division league has several stages, the first stage is a local stage, then the top teams from each group qualify to play in the final stage in the qualifying round. Sambein (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The club is not notable and there is barely any coverage, and definetely not enough significant coverage. --SuperJew (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - closing admin may wish to note that there is an investigation taking place regarding some of the votes in this discussion, which itself has been disrupted once already. The result of that investigation may well affect the consensus of this AfD. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Those wishing to delete the article have failed to advance an argument against merging, so per WP:ATD the content will be merged. However, there is no consensus on where the content should go, so someone should just be WP:BOLD and do it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters named Taylor[edit]

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

Is this a joke? Unencyclopedic list of characters that happen to share an element of their name. We don't have a list of every fictional "Bill", nor should we. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Classic WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it's better to scrape all the little piles of crap into one place into one steaming pile of crap. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: How do you come to this conclusion, given that many entries have blue links, leading either to their own article or own section within a summary article? Daranios (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AW Awards[edit]

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

A non-notable pornography industry award. Most of the references are to obvious press releases in industry trade publications; the remainder are to the websites of award recipients or even to Wikipedia articles. Cheers, gnu57 21:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 21:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Delete: (from Discussion: RfC Closed 25 March 2019 Remove.) "significant awards" do not correlate to the subjects meeting WP:BASIC, to which PORNBIO is a supplement. We have WP:ENT and this is sufficient. PORNBIO is gone for good; this does not meet WP:BASIC. Off to the slaughterhouse. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted as G11/G12. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Sewell (artist)[edit]

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

The three sources appear to be photo credits rather than significant coverage. The actual content of the article is unsourced, but appears to have been copied from https://www.tomsewell.com/tom Note: there is a British artist with the same name. That's a different person. Vexations (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lottie Moss[edit]

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

By my assessment, subject of the article doesn't pass WP:NMODEL. There are an abundance of hits on Google and Google News, but all of them are either blogs, tabloids, or other unsuitable reference material like the Daily Mail and The Sun. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just from poking around for a few minutes, looks like she meets WP:GNG. While we would expect someone like this to get lots of coverage in deprecated tabloids, she is also covered in lots of tabloids that we generally do consider reliable (WP:RSPSOURCES), such as The Cut or The Telegraph Fashion. She apparently also had a feature in Teen Vogue, as an example of the reliable coverage that exists about her. Suriname0 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - is in national newspapers a lot, although the overwhelming majority of it is just daily updates on what she's wearing and what she's posting on social media from Daily Mail and The Sun. There is some coverage in The Independent and The Telegraph but I couldn't find any significant coverage in the BBC or The Guardian. I did search Spanish, French and German newspapers and there were hits although all of it was related to her OnlyFans. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article just needs to be expanded beyond being the half sister of Kate Moss. Sources are present though some are gossips. Riteboke (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BioVallée[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 19:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This debate ultimately boiled down to whether this fits our criteria for encyclopedic content or not. The consensus in this debate is that the list does not meet this criteria. Daniel (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fugitives from justice who are no longer sought[edit]

List of fugitives from justice who are no longer sought (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An absurd, non-encyclopedic list of people who, at one time, were fugitives, but now are not, either because they were caught or because they died hundreds of years ago (although apparently this never happened in the history of the human race before 1554, according to this list). I do enjoy how the way the list is structured, it implies that Josef Mengele was fleeing from Nazi Germany, that's fun. And also how like 80% of the list is Americans from the last 150 years or so. Oddly, apparently nobody anywhere on earth was a fugitive who is no longer being sought between 1926 and 1929, the jailers must've been really on top of their game for those three years. This is just ridiculous, It's embarrassing to even know it is hosted here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for this reasons that I left on the articles talk page. This article has been a HUGE success! Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Define "huge success" please. I'm certainly not seeing one here. An incomplete list of every person who was ever wanted by law enforcement, but now is not is not an encyclopedia topic. Frankly your attitude abut this almost comes across as deliberate trolling. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeblebrox: Check out page views as that is what I meant. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidgoodheart:, please indent your replies. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The talk page comments seem to imply that this list is overly broad and vaguely defined, and based on most of these people no longer being sought due to death, I'm inclined to agree with the former. There may be thousands of notable criminals like that. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: Check out page views as that is what I meant. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews have spiked because this page is being mocked as an example of a terrible Wikipedia article on an external criticism site. I would also assume that whoever closes this discussion would know perfectly well that pageview counts are in no way a valid argument to keep an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What external site would that be? It's not prominent enough to show up on the first few pages of google, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're searching on, but I found the discussion I assume Beeblebrox is referencing as the first hit on a search for "list of fugitives" "crap article". That's hardly the first time issues with this particular page have been raised; if you want an on-wiki example, here's myself complaining about it more than a year ago. ‑ Iridescent 06:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was searching without crap article which seems to be the parlance for that very nasty forum that has been attacking the editor concerned with this article including suppositions of mental health which would have resulted in a block on wikipedia. Furthermore the topic wasn't raised there until 18 July and yet this article had monthly page views of 47,000 back in March so the link to page views is tenuous, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is well-referenced. I 'do' believe the article needs a little pruning to remove the "vague" insertions, and can hold said vague insertions in the berth (chronologically "to add" with tomorrow's news). As stands, it can encourage insertions of non-notable instances. To summarize, the vast majority of entries need splicing into their own articles/subtopic articles if the page as stands isn't deemed significant enough (this is my opinion of course). An invaluable collection of references to the topic though.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing is not the issue here. The issue is that this is a list that is basically "anyone on earth who was ever wanted for any reason, and now is not wanted, also for any reason." That is a hopelessly vague, unencyclopedic structure for a list article (as you seem to acknowledge). I don't see why splitting it further makes any sense as the individual entries already have their own articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I agree. I can see either side of the argument. I do see the list as a potentially invaluable one. Is this a list more important?--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no reliable sources that talk about fugitives who are no longer sought as a defined group. This concept is the creation of a Wikipedia editor. What connects fugitives from the 1500s with 21st century fugitives? Nothing. We already have "fugitive" categories, but the "no longer sought" qualifier is just plain silly and unencyclopedic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I initially thought this would be fugitives who were exonerated (which might be worthy; I'm looking at you Richard Kimble), but they seem to be, for the most part, people who were caught or killed or simply died before they could be apprehended. I strongly doubt that anyone else has compiled a list mashing together these three disparate criteria, so WP:NLIST applies. List of fugitives from justice who disappeared is good enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very useful list. Could need some work though. Byt AfD is no clean-up service. Sourced as well.BabbaQ (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This comment was stealth-canvassed by the article creator Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and the nominator advertised this AfD at the aforementioned forum where user Stanistani is an active admin who commented on the thread and followed up with a delete vote here - off-wiki canvassing in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article was already under discussion there and I merely mentioned that I had gone ahead an nominated it for deletion. Really not the same thing as informing one specific editor with no previous connection to the article, but who is apparently sympathetic. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is useless, impossible to keep current, and has deficiencies in grammar and spelling. →StaniStani 08:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate Keep. I'm not a fan of lists, as tagging/categorising can often be better, but some lists can be useful. The fact that we have a "fugitive" category militates against this list, but in its favour is the fact that this list is trying to provide information on the shared (and notable) concept of "fugitive, but got away with it". Other commenters have pointed out that there are inconsistencies in how the people listed here are "no longer sought", and claim that this is a weakness of this list; actually, I think it's a strength, and perhaps the most useful thing about this page: what we have here is a view of how wide the possibilities for "no longer sought" can be. Some concepts are well-explained by definitions, but others require ostension, and this list helps by showing how "no longer sought" can come about. RomanSpa (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The distinction between this and the "disappeared" is murky, since presumably after a hundred years or even less they stop trying to capture everyone. But if it makes sense to divide them up by one outcome, it makes sense to do so for the whole range of outcomes, and conversely, if it makes sense to lump some of them together, it makes sense to lump them all together and put in a column for the outcome. This particular grouping is arbitrary. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This doesn't have clear selection criteria. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine as I suggested on the talk page to fugitives who were sought for five or more years while they were / are alive or maybe three years if five is too restrictive. This article is on my watchlist so I would have commented anyway. Also regarding page views it's interesting that despite being linked at the top of every discussion we are supposed to studiously ignore them and yet when portals were discussed all the deletionists trotted out the page views, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Beeblebrox has pointed out, the higher-than-expected page views are because this is one of the standard pages used by critics as an example of Wikipedia at its worst, not because there's a flood of interest in the topic. ‑ Iridescent 06:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That forum did not discuss this article until July 18 yet it had page views of 47,000 for last March, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've previously used this pseudoarticle as an example of the worst of Wikipedia, and haven't seen anything to change my opinion. This isn't a coherent list of any kind—it's a completely arbitrary selection of randomly chosen criminals. "Fugitive from justice who is no longer sought" as used on this article describes literally every criminal who wasn't arrested at the scene of the crime but was subsequently detained. Even if we were to restrict it only to those people with existing Wikipedia articles, we're talking hundreds of thousands of entries before it would even come close to completeness, and without at least trying for completeness it's just a piece of original research. ‑ Iridescent 06:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list doesn't have clear selection criteria. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 08:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How else would readers know that fugitives who died in previous centuries are not still being pursued for posthumous prosecution? Oops, I meant delete due to lack of notabilty for the list as a topic, lack of clear inclusion criteria, and the general absurdity of a list that mixes people who have been captured, people who were killed by authorities, people who died of old age while still on the lam, etc. "It's useful" is a reasonable keep defense for some functional pages (templates, for example), but not for articles. --RL0919 (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Impossibly vague criteria and does not make LISTCRIT. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One if the worst examples of a list on Wikipedia, and unsalvageable. No evidence of any sources discussing "fugitives who have evaded justice and no longer being sought" in particular, and the criteria is so vague as to be meaningless. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of sources discussing fugitives which is obviously a notable topic, this is just a reduction of that topic. Also an entry qualification added that a fugitive would have to have been on the run for 5 years while alive would trim the entries down, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject of fugitives is notable, which is why the Fugitive article exists, as well as Category:Fugitives. This list is about a poorly defined subset of fugitives, for which no evidence of notability has been provided. --RL0919 (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably should have cited WP:CFORK in the nomination as this is exactly what this is: a made-up subset of the overall topic, created entirely here on Wikipedia as opposed to being based on coverage of this specific subset. That's not how it is supposed to work. Of course sources can be found about the subject of fugitives in general, and nobody is suggesting we delete all content on the broader subject so bringing that up is a red herring. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-encyclopedic list with extremely vague criteria of inclusion, borderlining on original research.--Darwinek (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very much unencyclopedic, shouldn't have even been created in the first place. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The relevant PAG is WP:LISTN. So the question is whether "fugitives from justice who are no longer sought" is a categorisation that exists in reliable sources. Googling "fugitives from justice who are no longer sought" only brings up Wikipedia as a source, so my current answer to that question is no, but am happy to change my mind if someone finds me a source that shows this grouping is actually something that exists outside the imagination of Wikipedia editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That having been said, it is well sourced, meets our core content policies, and the pageviews suggests it provides purpose to our readers, so a reasonable argument can be made to disregard the list notability guideline in this case. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on page view statistics I'd rather not go here, but since people keep holding up page views as evidence I feel I must. Page views do not reflect the number of unique visitors, only how many times the page was viewed in total. So, take July 4 for example. The page's primary author made over forty edits, presumably viewing the page many times while doing so. I'm not suggesting there is deliberate inflation of page views here, merely that it is not a trustworthy metric. Per WP:PAGEVIEWS: "Page stats can help determine how popular a page is, but are not an indication of a topic's notability. Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines are based on coverage found in reliable sources. If a page's stats are low, it is not a reason to consider it for deletion, and if high it is not a reason to save it from deletion." This simply should not be a consideration here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should also like to point out that if you search for "list of fugitives" in Google, it gives List of fugitives from justice who disappeared, and then the page being discussed. Since there is no overall list of fugitives, people don't really have any other pages to look at. Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I searched for "list of fugitives" on Google, I'd be expecting pages from Interpol and national law enforcement agencies, not Wikipedia. Prioritizing lists of people who are not actively sought fugitives seems counterproductive. (Not that what Google does should be much of our concern.) --RL0919 (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete stumbled upon this page while reading about Idi Amin and while the author seems to have invested much time and effort into this list, it also seems absurdly non-encyclopedic to me. Absolutely concur with what most in the Delete camp have been saying. Maybe a standalone article should exist for fugitives who managed to evade justice for so long that authorities just gave up looking for them, but this list seems to cater for criminals who were explicitly caught or killed, which I suppose is the fate of a vast majority of fugitives. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Wicks[edit]

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

I feel somewhat bad putting this up for AfD as the edit history indicates this page was made and then later prepared into an obituary page by the individuals son. I originally put this up for AfD for appearing to not pass WP:PROF and it was subsequently deprodded without reason. I have since done a deeper dive into this individual to check and it seems he fails to pass WP:PROF as well as WP:BIO.

Arguments for WP:PROF Non-notability[edit]

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

  • No. There is some confoundation here as there is another Charles E. Wicks[1] who seems to be involved with the US geological survey who would pass WP:PROF (if he is also a professor) on this measure. However, for Charles E. Wicks the chemist[2] he does not come close to meeting criteria 1 only having an h-score of 4 and 6 publications according to scopus, and google scholar backs this up. Although, he does have one book publication that has been cited over 700 times,[3] but I do not believe a single book (though highly cited) is quite enough to pass C1, more so because the book is effectively a collection of physical properties of compounds. I do wonder if it's possible he does have more publications as it is stated he was involved in research for 37 years. Since most of this occured from the 60's onward I do wonder if they could be cataloged poorly.

2.The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

  • No. He has won awards according to an old faculty page, but they all appear to be internal to oregon state university[4] and thus don't meet this criteria. I wasn't able to find any other awards.

3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

  • No. No evidence of this that was elected to a major society.

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

  • No. Does not seem to be the case, which would be expected due to his low publication count.

5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

  • No. He was department chair for 17 years, but I couldn't find any mentions of this being a named chair. So, close, but not quite.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

  • No. He seems to have only stayed in the chemical engineering department through his career and did not branch out.

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

  • No. This does not seem to be the case. Though he seems really loved by his family and was really valued by the community in which he lived.[5] However, this is the only mention of it in an obituary and it didn't seem to get news coverage. It, rather sadly doesn't count for criteria 7.

8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

  • No. I did not see anything about him being an editor.

References

  1. ^ "Scopus". Scopus. Retrieved 2 July 2021.
  2. ^ "Scopus". Scopus. Retrieved 2 July 2021.
  3. ^ Wicks, Charles (1 January 1963). thermodynamic properties of 65 elements–Their oxides, halides, carbides, and nitrides. USA: United States Department of the Interior. p. 146. Retrieved 2 July 2021.
  4. ^ "OSU CHBE". OSU. Retrieved 2 July 2021.
  5. ^ "OSU Obituary". OSU. Retrieved 2 July 2021.

Other Comments[edit]

Honestly, I was hoping I could find something to save this page as... well idk this just weirdly pulled on my heart strings as the page was curated by his son. But, I just couldn't find anything notable both when I put up the PROD and now when I did a second and deeper dive.

Please share your thoughts, thanks! --Tautomers(T C) 01:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination takes a lot of time and words to explain that the nominator doesn't really want to delete this page. And notice that all this text has resulted in the creation of another page to hold this discussion. By convention, we will not delete this discussion page, which will be kept visible in perpetuity. So, why then are we considering deleting the page in question, which is more encyclopedic, while retaining the discussion page which is just bureaucratic and of no general interest? It seems that the nominator thinks that there are rules which require us to do so. But we have a clear and fundamental policy which tells us what to do in such cases: "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". And the rule in question is, in any case, just a guideline which explicitly says that exceptions are possible.
For another recent, similar case, see Theodore Cohen. I deprodded that too and then, with others, took it to the main page as a respectable DYK which got over 2,500 views and no complaints. The encyclopedia was improved in that case, so why not this one too? Per policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Let's do that instead then. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks Andrew for sharing a recent example about a similar article, that's helpful to compare to as a reference point. I agree that that article was good to be kept because it not only met PROF standards, he also left a strong impact which was notified in multiple obituaries signifying his notability. With this article though, I did not see as extensive coverage, nor notability on PROF standards and as such I keep my vote as delete. It's great that you spruced up the article, but it still fails notability in my view, per my initial arguments. Additionally, while I feel bad about this article being deleted, I also do still think it should be deleted. Those two feelings can and do co-exist. I do not think the rules require us to delete the article. This is ultimately a consensus process, and one I have come to respect. If it is found worthy of being kept that will be great too. I'll be satisfied with whatever the consensus is. As a side note, I hope that you will address my concerns that I outlined on your talk page regarding approach to deprodding when you have the time, as I assume you have seen it based on your reply here. --Tautomers(T C) 19:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew and per nom's own statement "I do not think the rules require us to delete the article". Dr. Universe (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please don't mischaracterize what I say. While rules do not require articles to be deleted, I do still think this article should be deleted, per the analyses I have given and in respect information others have brought forward. If reasoning/evidence comes to light that causes my opinion to change, I'll update my vote in a comment accordingly. --Tautomers(T C) 21:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The case of Theodore Cohen is hardly comparable. He was a distinguished chemist known his research, not for compiling other people's work into a book. (Having said that, I do wonder at the justification for putting a picture of Isaac Asimov in his article. Asimov was indeed very famous, but not for the trivial science that he published.) 700 citations for such a compilation is not particularly impressive. A more appropriate comparison is with Edwin C. Webb, who does not have a Wikiparticle, despite having been vice-chancellor (head) of a major Australian university in addition to his distinction as a scientist. The last (1992) printed version of Enzyme Nomenclature now has 441 citations, and this count ignores the many citations to the earlier editions. Likewise, his classic book Enzymes with Malcolm Dixon has accumulated too many citations to count, but probably more than 10000. Athel cb (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that's great; thank you. You created it today, after I wrote the above, so maybe my comment had a useful effect. However, it hardly affects the point, which is that 700 citations to a book published in 1963 is not very impressive (better than many, certainly, but nothing special). Athel cb (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:PROF is mostly geared to academics and scientists who are active today. How to apply it when the subject retired in 1987 is more equivocal; we need to think back to what citations were like in the pre-Internet days, for example. I think that Fundamentals of Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer [1] and Thermodynamic Properties of 65 Elements [2], though co-authored, add up to a "body of work" that suffices for wiki-notability. The former keeps being brought out in new editions (currently on its seventh, apparently, with Wicks credited on the first five), which suggests it's a bit of a standard. XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you feel bad putting the article up for deletion, and it pulls on your heart strings, let's just keep it. NemesisAT (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep fails WP:NPROF#1 without major research awards or highly cited papers or obituaries, but I think one could (weakly) argue that he passes WP:NPROF#4 with the textbooks he authored. Another issue is the lack of any strong RS. --hroest 21:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not pass Academic notability guideline 1. His work is not majorly impactful in his field of study.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While there's little sign of WP:NPROF C1, I believe the WP:NPROF C4 case from the apparently fairly widely-used textbook. The other book is reasonably highly cited, and I think it saves this from being a WP:BLP1E. The article is in relatively poor shape, but as usual, WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully the last re-listing. Hoping an admin comes and closes when they believe there's rough consensus or no consensus. I can't close because I !voted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr. Universe (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Worthy academic, undoubtedly. Give more leeway to the historical over the currently working. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above Sahaib (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes Nprof c4 barely.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Philippine television shows#Arts and culture as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Art Is Kool[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub about an art tv programme. A WP:BEFORE search couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG John B123 (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While there was significant support for keep in this discussion, primarily based on the subject passing ENT and GNG due to the existence of multiple sources found in broader BEFORE checks, there was a clear majority who supported one or both arguments against sourcing (either that they weren't reliable, or that there wasn't sufficient in-depth coverage)

As there was policy-backing for both sides, including consideration of each other's reasoning, ultimately it came down to a numbers game, with a clear outcome for deletion Nosebagbear (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sham Idress[edit]

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

References do not show WP:SIGCOV and do not meet WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to Sham Idrees (corrected spelling of his name), As sham idrees clearly comply with WP:SIGCOV and meet with WP:GNG. Visit following links to look at significant coverage from National Newspapers & TV channels of Pakistan:
  1. https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1103058/
  2. https://dailytimes.com.pk/237888/why-is-ducky-bhai-trying-to-bring-down-sham-idrees-and-froggy/
  3. https://tribune.com.pk/story/2266498/sham-idrees-introduces-daughter-from-a-previous-marriage
  4. https://dailyausaf.com/article/showbiz-201905-17533.html
  5. https://www.samaa.tv/entertainment/2019/05/shaam-idrees-says-wife-froggy-attacked-by-karachi-mob/
  6. https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/467888-who-are-sham-idrees-queen-froggy
  7. https://gulfnews.com/photos/entertainment/pakistan-origin-popular-you-tubers-sham-idrees-and-wife-seher-celebrate-birth-of-baby-girl-1.1583675824298?slide=7
  8. https://www.bolnews.com/entertainment/2020/10/sham-idrees-extends-thankfulness-to-fans-family-for-birthday-wishes
  9. https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1076819/
  10. https://dailypakistan.pk/entertainment/71681/

He also meets 2nd Point of WP: Entertainer with a very large fanbase of 6.5M Facebook fans 1, 4.1M youtube fans (1.92M Sham Idrees +2.16M Sham Idrees Vlogs + 132K The Car Guys), 1M+ Instagram fans 2. So there should be no question to his notability. Thank you. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The available references do not show the notability of the subject. The references are either Gossip articles or PR/announcements and not from WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS that is independent of the subject. GermanKity (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GermanKity Please elaborate which of above links are Gossip articles or PR/announcements? If such is the case, then we should block citations from all these sources (Dawn.com, The News (Pakistan), The Express Tribune, Daily Ausaf, Daily Pakistan, Samaa TV and Bol News), as they're posting PR stuff in name of their editorial. It's really shame that all these Media giants are now posting PR stuff instead of News.(Maybe Corona hit them hard), Thanks. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia community decides which newspapers and sources are WP:RS and not an individual alone from among us. Individuals, including me, are free to give their views or choose to make sweeping statements here. Like I said before in my comments, I consider most of the above listed sources as Reliable Sources. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have noticed this article has been further improved by the article creator User:Abdulhaseebatd by adding many third party independent and reliable newspaper references as he has listed them above here for us. By the way, I checked them before writing these comments that they all work. In my view, this article, after these improvements, passes WP:GNG now. Also I noticed SharqHabib above has already 'Moved this page' to the correct name spelling of the article title. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I should note that the Sharq's !vote does not appear to be policy-backed, but given GermanKity has contested the grounds for Keep, further discussion remains warranted
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above comments, seems to pass WP:ENT and WP:GNG. But the formatting on the references needs to be improved. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 15:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the gossip-rags listed above are definitely NOT RS. GenQuest "scribble" 20:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes gng as all those refs are reliable sources from pakistan Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 09:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GEN and ENT. Please also refer to WP:NYOUTUBE. This article lacks in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sources are not enough to establish notability. They're only gossips, discussing family celebrations, road accidents, feud between Youtubers etc. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Ngrewal1- He is notable among Indians and Pakistani. Most of mentioned sourced in the page are considered reliable. Hasan (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a quite controversial deletion discussion on whether the cited sources are reliable or not. I still believe those are reliable third party news references, with most being improved recently by the initial creator. And it also seems to meet the ENT# point 2 as the person has achieved huge popularity among Indians and Pakistanis both online and offline. In other words, I find Ngrewal1's explanation plausible and agree with them. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 14:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:ENT and lacks independent reliable sources. Also this has been deleted before via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sham Idrees (2nd nomination) so I think this discussion should be updated as 3rd nomination since the page name was already updated. Regards. Kinngjatt (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:Kinngjatt, I'm really interested to know that how he fails WP:ENT when he got significantly large Cult fan following? As I remember even his newborn daughter's Fb page was able to pull up 125K followers shortly after her birth(Now she has 278K followers). Are those follows were not from his cult followers who even liked a page of a newborn with no content? By the way I'm repeating that he has 6.5M Facebook fans, 4.1M youtube fans (1.91M Sham Idrees + 2.17M Sham Idrees Vlogs + 132K The Car Guys) and 1M+ Instagram fans. So it'll really interesting to know how he fails WP:ENT. Secondly how citation from these biggest Pakistani media groups like ARY, DAWN, GEO/JANG, SAMAA, DUNIYA, BOL are not Independent and Reliable. Thank you ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abdulhaseebatd, the number of social media followers has nothing to do with notability. What Wikipedia needs is that WP:SIGCOV to demonstrate notability for entertainers, Youtubers etc. "If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Please refer to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS for future reference. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TheBirdsShedTears Well, maybe the number of social media followers has nothing to do directly with notability, but it has much to do with WP:ENT(point I tried to establish by coming up with his social media stats. I never tried to establish his notability merely by giving his social media stats). I've already shared some sources above and you can find other by visting Sham Idrees. Thank you ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’delete’’’ client fails GNG.2A04:4A43:497F:B20E:F97E:192:BC27:51B5 (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, or move to draft if a case can be made that substantial reliable sources exist that could be added to the article. A YouTube prankster whose coverage derives from a feud with another non-notable YouTuber. BD2412 T 05:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sham Idrees gained popularity after having his feud with a YouTuber. I remember Sham used to be known in the YouTube community of Pakistan, all these sources of Sham are of the past, but if you talk about 2020 and 2021, Sham has become like an irrelevant person in Pakistan now, each of his video can't even get a million views, so the final thing is Sham is no more well-known in Pakistan, there won't even be a single source about Sham in 2021. RaziNaama (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RaziNaama Actually Ducky Bhai gained popularity after that feud, not Sham Idrees (who was quite popular at that time), Ducky gained 100,000 subscriber in very start of feud, meanwhile sham and his fellows lost many subs. But anyway there's difference between Popularity and Notability. Thank you. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RaziNaama: It doesn't matter here. You admitted that he was once popular. Even if popularity decreases if he's once known for his works, he will be still considered notable on Wikipedia. And you have joined Wikipedia 12 days ago, and it seems surprising that you are participating in AFD discussion. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 14:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! There is indeed a sockpuppet investigation on you. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 14:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Please note that RaziNaama is indefinitely blocked as a result of Sockpuppet investigations. He previously voted against this article by his account SharqHabib (later removed his vote himself). ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This isn't about reliability of sources. Coverage is not in-depth. Sources are not good content-wise ("Pakistan origin popular You tubers Sham Idrees and wife Seher celebrate birth of baby girl" et cetera). — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The sources listed above by Ngrewal1 are not in-depth and do not rise to the level of significance required by WP:SIGCOV. Likewise does not meet any of the criteria at WP:NMUSIC or WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems ready for a consensus to be made after it's been in AfD for more than 5 weeks. Does not require a full 7 days of relisting before closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr. Universe (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While the discussion happening here may be illuminating, if no rough consensus can be reached, the article by default will be kept. An article can't stay in AfD forever, and this one has already been discussed more than 5x longer than AfD discussions are meant to last. Dr. Universe (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — WP:NEXIST states Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Google search results about Sham Idrees clearly indicate that there must be independent, reliable sources with significant coverage as there are tens of articles about him from Pakistan's mainstream media outlets like Geo News(one of most popular Urdu news channel), ARY News(Top most popular Urdu news channel), Dawn.com(oldest Pakistani newspaper), The News (Pakistan)(largest Pakistani newspaper), The Express Tribune(National Newspaper), Daily Ausaf, Daily Pakistan, Samaa TV, Bol News and many more. Also note that large sum of popular pakistani Newspapers, TV channels are in urdu & many of Urdu newspapers don't have their websites(finding there content on internet is quite impossible). Thank you. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a relist after a preceding relist followed by 4:0 !votes is very problematic. An administrator needs to take a careful look at this discussion, potentially remove some content (such as the relist comment and the subsequent bias-inducing and procedurally false comment by the relister), and assess viability of any further discussion after it was adulterated by the tendentious relist. See Wikipedia:Relisting can be abusive — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alalch Emis: There was a 17 (!!!) day gap between the last relist and mine. I might have closed the AfD as a "delete" if I could, but delete decisions require an admin, so I relisted. What else was supposed to be done? Just let it continue going for far beyond the usual lifetime of an AfD discussion, while being neglected by admins who are supposed to be making close decisions on the backlog of AfD discussions (especially for cases where non-admins can't close it because the decision isn't unanimous enough or the consensus is leaning towards delete)? Your uses of the words "adulterated" and "tendentious" are inappropriate here and come across far too confrontational. I relisted because this discussion has been going on for more than 5x the intended lifetime of an AfD discussion and a decision now needs to be made. This has nothing to do with "adultery" or "tendentiousness". Please just assume a bit of good faith for editors that are just trying to help the Wikipedia project by working on reducing the size of the backlog. Dr. Universe (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This was a fairly complicated discussion that endeavoured to use a test case AfD and apply to a batch.

The delete !votes were all clear-cut and well-formed, indicating that individual ceremonies were not well enough sourced (there was a marginal case over the 37th - had I come down in favour of delete, that one would have remained no-consensus) and could not inherit notability from the overarching notable nature of the awards.

The Keep !votes did not generally rebut the sourcing argument - specific instances were contested, but there wasn't a general effort to show that independent sourcing to meet NEVENT/GNG for each.

Instead the reasoning was more that as the relevant details couldn't all be included in the main article, splitting them off like this was legitimate and a fair use of PRIMARY. Various call-outs to equivalent cases was carried out by both keep and delete supporters.

In general I found the Keep policy basis less strong than that of those advocating Deletion, but not non-existent. Had it been a single article I may have just found in favour of deletion, but traditionally batch submissions need to be fairly clear-cut to demonstrate cause for deletion.

Should a general village pump discussion indicate that NOTINHERITED clearly does apply to things such as particular awards ceremonies, seasons etc, then I will overturn my close to delete. Alternatively, this close can be raised at DRV without prior discussion with myself (though if there's something unclear by all means reach out), if it is felt that it was assessed with a misapplied consideration of underlying policy Nosebagbear (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum (Apologies, edit-conflict meant I had to restart) - there was also consideration of a merge to a single list article, which while it clearly did not represent a consensus, was also not particularly opposed. A merge discussion can be held in the regular fashion. Nosebagbear (talk)

38th Young Artist Awards[edit]

This AfD is currently being closed by me. Please do not make further edits to it at this time Nosebagbear (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]


38th Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons discussed below:

31st Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
32nd Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
33rd Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
34th Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
35th Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
36th Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
37th Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Following the AfD for the 39th Young Artist Awards, I have decided to nominate the 31st through 38th editions of these awards for deletion. As with the 39th ceremony, these ceremonies lack sources. After some Google searches across these eight ceremonies, I only found three reliable secondary sources (in total, not per year) that discussed a specific ceremony (sources: [3], [4], [5]). Major industry publications such as Variety (search) and THR (search) do not cover the individual ceremonies at all. In other words, there is very minimal, if any, coverage of these ceremonies. There are some human-interest stories from local newspapers and news stations that focus on individuals receiving awards, but to me, these aren't notable – there are dozens, if not hundreds, of similar stories every day. Also, it seems the ceremonies have unclear voting standards and little recognition from industry professionals and studios (source), which further weakens the case for keeping these articles.

I'll reiterate this from the previous AfD: I think the Young Artist Awards as a whole are notable, but not the individual ceremonies, and notability is not inherited. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are articles for every year stretching back to the first one, why are the yearly lists from the 31st onward not notable, but 1 through 30 are? Donaldd23 (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Donaldd23: I figured it was better to discuss these articles in chunks rather than deleting all of them at once. I'm planning to list the other ceremonies at AfD once this discussion is finished – should I just include those ceremonies here? I'm not super familiar with how AfDs work, so I don't know which would be better. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chunks seem like a fairly good idea. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the awards are notable then the results of those awards should be listed and to do so needs splitting from the parent article. Also human interest stories regarding receiving the awards are a sign of their notability. Regarding the close on the 39th Awards am considering a deletion review, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify why I think human-interest stories are irrelevant to notability, I'm basing this off of WP:NEWSORG ("Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy") and WP:ROUTINE ("Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts", emphasis mine). And again, I'll cite WP:INHERITED to note why the existence of the page Young Artist Award does not justify this: "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child 'tree') does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities." RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEWSORG opines that human interest stories may be less reliable than news stories but that does not mean that they are unreliable or should be discounted while WP:ROUTINE is for run of the mill announcements which I would suggest does not cover an annual, national level award from an awards ceremony that you describe as notable. The details of the awards cannot be subtracted from the notability of the awards in my view, so these essentially split articles should be kept, in my view, Atlantic306 (talk)
So are you suggesting that human-interest stories alone prove notability? That is a pretty low bar for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is rarely a guideline that exactly corresponds to a given situation, so I was aiming to show with these guidelines that human-interest stories do not appear to be a good indicator of notability. WP:GNG states that notability is established by "significant coverage in reliable sources"; WP:NEWSORG indicates the sources are not particularly reliable, and WP:ROUTINE indicates the coverage is not significant; hence, I think it's fair to say that human-interest stories fail to establish notability on their own. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My main point is that as the awards are notable as you confirm then the results of those awards are necessary and important information that the reader would expect to see and that there is no valid reason at all for deletion. I will do a source-search tomorrow, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the disconnect we're having is that we have different perceptions of "necessary and important information". Here's my perspective on it:
I work on a lot of TV articles. For a TV show that has met the notability guidelines, it is generally acceptable to include a list of episodes (or, if the list of episodes would be too long to fit in the main page, a stand-alone list for the episodes). Listing the individual episodes, even if they don't have sources specifically about them, is okay. However, taking the step to create stand-alone articles for individual episodes requires that the episodes have their own coverage. In rare cases, I think it would be okay to allow a few episodes to slip in without significant coverage simply to complete the set, but only if the vast majority of the other episodes in the series have significant coverage.
Using this analogy here, I would argue that list of ceremony dates, locations, etc. in the main article is the same as the list of episodes in a TV series article. The ceremonies may not be individually notable, but it's worthwhile context. Creating year-by-year articles is akin to creating individual episode articles; at that point, the ceremonies require significant, independent coverage, which I have not seen. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To delete the results of an award that is judged notable is against the best interests of Wikipedia. Are the articles for yearly Academy Awards, Emmys, Golden Globes, etc not notable either? Surely we agree that the Academy Awards are notable, but is, say, the 13th Academy Awards notable on its own? If we all agree an award is notable, then the ceremonies/winners are also notable and since that information cannot feasibly fit on the parent page that covers the awards as a whole, we have individual pages for each award. The Young Artist Award is no different. And, I agree with Atlantic306 that the 39th ceremony that was deleted should have a deletion review. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is those ceremonies have sources written specifically about them. To use your example of the 13th Academy Awards, I found a New York Times article, a Variety article, and an article from the FDR Presidential Library, to name a few. (Some of those are behind paywalls, but they are still legitimate sources.) I have yet to see comparable coverage of the individual ceremonies for the Young Artist Awards. To me, saying that the mere existence of an award justifies an article about every ceremony is comparable to saying that the presence of a notable sports team means every one of the team's seasons deserves an article, or the existence of a TV show justifies an article about every episode. There are teams that are notable enough for season-by-season coverage, and shows that justify episode-by-episode articles, but that is because there are secondary sources specifically about those topics, not just because the parent topic is notable. Likewise, there are awards that deserve articles for individual ceremonies, and there are those that do not. To me, this clearly falls in the latter category. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per closing comment in AfD for the 39th Young Artist Awards: I'm not convinced by the arguments presented by the !keeps. Perhaps a redireect is warrant. I'm deleting per nom and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I don't agree that if the reward is notable, each of the yearly ceremonies is also notable. There is an infinite number of instances on Wikipedia that members of a set are not notable while the set is notable. It may absolutely be so that the award is notable in a historical frame of reference, as a whole, but that each of it's yearly ceremonies is fairly unremarkable and very weakly covered. Arguing to the opposite runs into WP:NOTINHERITED. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I'm not convinced by the arguments presented by the !keeps. Perhaps a redireect is warrant. I'm deleting per nom and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE" I'm not convinced by the arguments in the closing comment. I don't find the article to satisfy any of the four WP:INDISCRIMINATE items(Lyrics databases). The closing comment did not particularly analyse the arguments for keeping, it refers to the nom. I did not quite understand the "I find it especially problematic to include non-notable information when it discusses minors, as this does." argument and why is the information about awards and nominations of the artist non-notable, considering that there are sources on artists' awards and wins. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just went through the main article and found many dead links. Nonetheless, the awards may be just barely notable, but I like the argument above that the individual ceremonies, having almost zero coverage, do not warrant standalone articles. The list of ceremonies in the main article seems to be a good compromise. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The list of ceremonies in the main article seems to be a good compromise." It is not a copromise, it's a wipe-out of nominations. If the individual ceremonies are deleted, then the info about nominations and awards should be transferred to the main article. Which then would make it large enough for it to be separated into other articles. I view many articles as a technical and trivial thing of dividing article. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why would the list of nominations have to be moved to the main article? If it's not notable information, it shouldn't be included. That's the entire point of having a deletion discussion – to figure out if information should or should not be included. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • "If it's not notable information, it shouldn't be included" - but I mentioned the examples of this information cited in sources. Which supports notion that it is notable information. If Jaden Smith's nominations mentioned include these Awards, that would indicate it is notable information. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem that I see is that you're taking one piece of notable information (from an unreliable source, assuming you're discussing the Republic TV article from below) and using it to justify an entire article's worth of non-notable information. I would argue that Smith's award could merit recognition on a page about Smith, especially since the Young Artist Awards website might serve as a secondary source in that context, but that does not mean it can support an entire article about everyone else at that ceremony by itself. Consider this analogy: there was a notable winter storm that affected Texas this year, but that doesn't mean we should start creating an article for Weather in Texas in 2021 – the existence of a single notable element does not inherently justify a wider-ranging overview of the topic. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • "one piece of notable information" - it is not just one piece, there are at least several sources on actors receiving awards and nominations in a single year, not just Smith. That is why I think it is important to have such nominations in an article, if not the article specifically about the ceremony, then in the main article, about all ceremonies - but then the article would be too big. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:N does not discuss whether information should be included in Wikipedia, it discusses whether it warrants its own article. NemesisAT (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        You are correct; my choice of words here was poor and "notable" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia that doesn't match what I was talking about. WP:PRIMARY better summarizes what I was trying to say. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, you are proposing using trivial mentions in non-reliable sources as the sole basis for an entire article about the topic, which would still include many nominees that are otherwise non-notable. This is not how WP:GNG works, at least in my interpretation. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do not think that nominating almost 10 ceremonies at once after one single closer where the main argument is "I'm not convinced by the arguments presented by the !keeps", while there were two detailed keep votes and one delete with usual "Not enough WP:GNG to warrant an article" is a good thing - how are we supposed to find sources on so many awards quickly enough? There are many mentions of the Awards received in articles about actors, or their body of work, which indicate that it is a notable fact, and considering that these are different actors[6], [7], [8], it indicates that award and specifically ceremony are notable. The article mentions Kids Choice awards and MTV awards right with Young Artist awards, it means it is on par with those two awards. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two of those sources are from the Daily Express and Republic TV, which are both considered generally unreliable per WP:RSP and therefore irrelevant to establishing notability. The third is from TVOvermind, which, if I had to guess, would also be deemed questionable at best. Moreover, those sources include only passing mentions of the awards. Per WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention." These are articles about people who happened to win at an awards ceremony, not the awards ceremony itself. In my opinion, a notable awards ceremony will have articles specifically about it – consider the four sources for the 37th TCA Awards article that I recently created, which all directly discuss the topic. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are sources about the specific awards, LA Times for instacnce. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you provide the links? For the LA Times, I assume you're discussing this article mentioned earlier by Atlantic306, which, as I noted then, only discusses the 37th ceremony because that's when the article happened to be written. There is no mention of the various categories or much of the other information included in the article; the mentions of the ceremony are only there as a springboard to discuss the wider issues with the awards as a whole. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I suggest for this to be the last re-list. Please come to consensus or allow a keep due to no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr. Universe (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the award itself is considered notable, this and the other yearly articles ought to be considered under the notability for the main award. As the award is notable, I think it's fair to also list its winners and evidently, there is too much content here for a single article. Hence, the separate yearly articles. NemesisAT (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTINHERITED makes it clear that the notability of a parent topic does not make subtopics automatically notable. Moreover, the notion that the list of winners would be covered in the main article were there not so many years to cover is deeply flawed. Such a large section reliant entirely on primary sources is explicitly what WP:PRIMARY warns against. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Using primary sources for lists of winners falls into the reasonable usage of primary sources described at WP:PRIMARY in my opinion, I disagree that the idea is flawed. Would you support a merge of this content into the main article? NemesisAT (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not think a merge is justifiable. WP:PRIMARY policy #5 states: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." If the articles for each ceremony remain, they will fail the first statement, as the vast majority (if not the entirety) of these articles would be based on primary sources. If the articles are merged into Young Artist Awards, they will form a massive section that dominates the article and still relies solely on primary sources, failing the second statement.
      I see it this way: The list of ceremonies, while mostly reliant on primary sources, is okay for inclusion in the Young Artist Awards article because it's only one step down (overall awards → individual ceremonies), making it fairly relevant to an overview of the topic, and doesn't dominate the existing article. However, the lists of winners and nominees is too far because it's two steps down (overall awards → individual ceremonies → individual winners/nominees) and would end up flooding the article with primary information. Does that make sense? RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The relisting comment is insufficiently neutral; it is also procedurally unsound because a no consensus finding is a no consensus finding not "keep". The relist is uncalled for after a 3 vs. 1 ratio since the preceding relist (all of the !votes probably having normal weight). An administrator needs to assess the viability of further discussion since the last relist. @Sandstein: I think a correction of course is in order (such as removal of the relist comment). — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Related essay: WP:RELISTINGISEVIL — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The same uer, Dr. Universe has made the same kind of tendentious(-seeming) relist here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sham Idress. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch Emis: I've struck out the part you're referring to. I had no intention to be "insufficiently neutral". I'm completely independent of this topic. I thought "no consensus" and "keep" are the same, but after writing that comment, I have indeed seen some AfD discussions ending in "no consensus" rather than "keep", it's just that the article ends up getting kept in those "no consensus" cases, but I do appreciate that the effect is different, so I've struck out the comment. I very much encourage you not to attack me though, here or in the other AfD entry you mentioned. Please assume good faith. Dr. Universe (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all the listy stuff to List of Young Artist Awards winners (or whatever). (If there were any encyclopedic content in any of these articles, it could be merged to Young Artist Awards, but it doesn't look to me like there is.) There is something here, but putting it into 40 different articles spreads it too thin. For example, I agree with RunningTiger123 that the LA Times article represents significant coverage of the awards generally, but really the 37th edition specifically is just incidental to the story (because it happens to have been written then), and it is a dis-service to both readers and maintainers to have whatever other little bits of content there are like that spread out over many articles and duplicated with the main article. The tables of winners are too much to jam into the main article, but would make a perfectly adequate list article. --JBL (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Offer[edit]

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

Not really seeing enough for WP:GNG at the moment. I can't really find anything better than the sources already provided, which are just stats databases and her club's own website. I found this in MyFootball but it's only a trivial squad list mention. She does also have profiles on GSA and Soccerway but these don't establish notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nehme1499 18:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the subject was playing in a male league, with multiple appearances for a team in the top national league . . . . but the WP.NG.FOOTBALL . . . . Aoziwe (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if playing in the W-League did carry a presumption of notability, Offer currently has zero appearances in the top national league so this wouldn't be a valid reason for keeping. Even male footballers playing in the top national league are required to pass WP:GNG as is clearly stated at the top of WP:NFOOTBALL in the Q&A section; specifically Q1 and Q2 Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Merrick[edit]

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

No indication of notability and no sources. Bellowhead678 (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for artists it is important to check for permanent collections before nominating, since WP:ARTIST says an artist is likely notable if they are in several notable museum or gallery collections. And he is in at least two, which I have added to the article. There's additional coverage in various sources to make clear that he meets WP:ARTIST. --- Possibly ☎ 18:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Thom Merrick is internationally known (since the early 1990s). He is indeed notable. The article needs improvement, but that is not a reason for deletion. Meets WP:NARTIST #1 and #4 criteria. (And that disarticulated motorcycle installation is stellar).[9] Netherzone (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No indication of notability, and yet the article, when it was AfD'd, listed a number of catalogues, the first "Documenta 9", Kassel, Edition Cantz, 1992. If inclusion in the Documenta, one of the "major art world events", is not an indication of notability, then very little else is. Vexations (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Richard Cheese#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 17:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK Bartender[edit]

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

Entirely source to a billboard chart. Not finding much on google to show notability. —valereee (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it charted, didn’t it? Hyperbolick (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hyperbolick, yes, it was #15 on Billboard US Top Comedy Albums the week of April 9, 2010. Is that sufficient, even with no other support? If it is, happy to withdraw, but...really? :D —valereee (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven’t fully decided that myself tbh. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. This is a great illustration of the requirement for multiple independent reliable sauces. Even if we allow that being on the chart means the album is "important" (or whatever), without sources there's nothing to base an article on. EEng 23:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Richard Cheese. Charting alone is not enough to justify an album having an independent article. It should have significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources and I am not seeing that here. I would recommend a redirect over a deletion as this is a viable search term and I would imagine that it would be more help for readers that way. Aoba47 (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Richard Cheese#Discography. The notability guideline at WP:NALBUM uses the phrase "may be notable" so sometimes charting just isn't enough. This album charted but nobody wrote anything reliable and significant about it in the music or entertainment media. Therefore this article will never be anything more than a basic tracklist. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bottle illustration was a joke. Reliable sauces, per EEng above. Get it? :D —valereee (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So funny I forgot to laugh. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Messenger (2015 British film)[edit]

The Messenger (2015 British film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any RS that would show that it meets WP:NFILM. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawing nomination. I must have used the wrong search terms, as I didn't find the reviews that Edwardx did. That said, please AGF, and avoid personal attacks. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lazy fail to do research prior to nomination. See WP:BEFORE, "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." A quick search for "The Messenger Lily Cole" finds reviews in reliable sources, and I have added two. Edwardx (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Richard Cheese#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 17:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Sunny Side of the Moon: The Best of Richard Cheese[edit]

The Sunny Side of the Moon: The Best of Richard Cheese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This entire article is sourced completely to a Billboard chart history. Not finding anything else on Google, news, newspapers. I think the band is notable, but probably not this album. —valereee (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteRedirect to Richard Cheese#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM, although reaching #9 on the Billboard's Comedy chart, nobody appears to have even written about the album. Google news search leads to one (1) page, a click-bait article in Portuguese on "10 covers that prove Nirvana's songs are good in any style". Otherwise, not "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article": no award nominations, no sales certifications, and nothing to say about the album except to list the tracks, on top of which we say, "This album is composed primarily of songs that were on other Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine albums." — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with the two commenters below, and apologies for not paying closer attention; a redirect is what I meant and prefer. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 23:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Richard Cheese#Discography. While charting certainly helps, in this case it is necessary to acknowledge the use of "may be notable" at WP:NALBUM. This album has achieved nothing else, especially reliable and significant media coverage. Otherwise all we have is a tracklist, which is no great loss. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Richard Cheese#Discography. I do not see evidence of significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources, but I think a redirect would be more beneficial to readers than an outright deletion as this is a viable search term and a viable target article exists. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy with a redirect as a solution. —valereee (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The French Connection (production company)[edit]

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

An article about a pornography company sourced only to the company website. I looked for additional references and found nothing to satisfy WP:NCORP. (XBIZ and AVN do have some routine coverage of product announcements, business partnerships, and the like -- note that these end with the company sales manager's contact information, a likely sign of PR.) Cheers, gnu57 17:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. gnu57 17:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. gnu57 17:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 17:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Football Club Matese season[edit]

2020–21 Football Club Matese season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A season article about a fourth-tier Italian club (non fully-pro). Barely sourced, doesn't really merit an article of its own. Nehme1499 15:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 15:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 15:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme1499 16:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.--Sakiv (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems totally unnecessary when the parent article is barely more than a stub. Below the level that typically gets enough significant coverage to build a meaningful season article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has taken me all day yesterday to create and I am trying very hard! Not exactly sure as to why it's not notable ... the club are playing in Serie D = League Two in England (so they're playing "League football", not "non-League"). Also, you have to understand it is difficult to provide reliable sources for a club that has only been in existence since 2020, especially when I have to source information from websites such as Transfermarkt (which User:Sir Sputnik doesn't want anyone to use as a source for verification because they consider it "unreliable"). Another two sources I have used are TuttoCalciatori and TuttoCampo. I would try and source more information from the club's official website, however it is still "a work in progress", meaning not everything is available on there. Matese lost in the play-offs and had they played in the final and won, they would have been playing Serie C football for the 2021/22 season. Look, the reason I have placed templates like Empty section / Expand section is because even though I have seen photographs of the kit online ... I don't know what to class their coulours as (for example, the shirt and shorts are green but appear as different shades according to different photographs). Therefore I am not sure what colour coding I should add (hence why I haven't added the home & kit template to the article). The socks are sort of a lighter shade of green, perhaps a kind of yellow (F.C. Matese's nickname) according to TuttoCampo is "Verde Oro", see link at Tuttocampo "Green Gold", see this link for the kit (shirt) at Tuttocampo. - ST MADG*85 talk) 17:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ST MADG*85: Please read WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Just because Matese exists, and have almost reached the Serie C, doesn't mean we need to have an article on each of its seasons. Even you admit that it's "difficult to provide reliable sources", and that you have had to resort to unreliable sources such as Transfermarkt. Also, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, the Serie D isn't exactly the same as League Two. Serie D is the first semi-pro league in Italy, while League Two is still fully-pro. Nehme1499 17:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, fair enough! I created the article because the club were only established in 2020, therefore if at some point they end up playing higher up in the Italian football pyramid, (becoming notable), we'd already have at least their first season recorded. As for the other matter, what do you suggest I do about the colour coding (Kit template) ... I mean, what shade of green would you say their kit is and what is the secondary colour for their home kit (the socks)? Based on this link on the club's official website [10], the socks appear to be a luminous green / yellow, yet in another photo, they are the same colour as the home kit's shirt and shorts. Here's a link to an away match in which they wore their home colours, notice they're wearing the luminous socks [11] Maybe, the luminous colour is an alternate colour they use. They seem to play in a white / green away kit. Again, what colour green would you say they use for their away kit, if it is at all different? Looking at this link on their official YouTube channel YouTube, you can see they're wearing their third kit, even though they are playing in their home stadium. ST MADG*85 (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ST MADG*85: I've answered on your talk page. No need to discuss about kit colours on a deletion nomination. Nehme1499 18:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 17:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Thistle & Shamrock[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. There are some trivial mentions from various radio stations, but even those appear to be affiliated with or published by NPR so I would question whether they are independent. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:RPRGM with sources presented by TexasDex. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it has plenty of non NPR sources, as shown by TexasDex.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Hassanzadeh[edit]

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

Professional or otherwise, futsal players are not covered by WP:NFOOTBALL. I conducted searches on Google News and DDG in Persian and the best sources found were a one sentence announcement in Futsal Camp regarding a doping ban and a squad list mention in IRNA. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG like all the other one line Iranian futsal player articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lasha Sajaia[edit]

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

I can't find any WP:GNG-level coverage of him and itsrugby and Ultimate Rugby only list activity at youth level so WP:NRU doesn't appear to be met either. The Racing appearances in the infobox, if they are correct at all, are likely to be in references to academy appearances rather than senior as I can't find anything to support an appearance for Racing. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, no notable professional or international appearances, and am not seeing anything in a search to suggest a GNG pass either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Dr. Universe (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Shortland[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. The references in the article are either passing mentions or non-independent sources and I can't find any more substantial coverage. – Joe (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as creator, appears in many references [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] to name several --Sputnik12 (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quick observation: the ScienceDaily and Phys.org items are press releases, and the Daily Mail is deprecated. I wasn't able to check the Economist and Telegraph stories from my current computer, but all of the other items are passing mentions (and possibly not independent — churning press releases seems likely). XOR'easter (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've now been able to check the Economist and Telegraph stories as well, and they are also brief, passing mentions. As WP:PROF says, being quoted occasionally is part of an academic's job. If there's a notability case to be made, it's not through the news. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.policeprofessional.com/news/game-changing-centre-of-forensic-excellence-opens-at-cranfield/
  2. ^ https://archaeology.co.uk/articles/features/le-catillon-ii.htm
  3. ^ https://www.businessweekly.co.uk/news/academia-research/forensic-sleuths-boosted-cranfield-millions
  4. ^ https://www.archaeology.org/news/5046-161129-egypt-mesopotamia-glass
  5. ^ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170629085013.htm
  6. ^ https://phys.org/news/2017-06-x-ray-technique-ancient-artifacts.html
  7. ^ https://www.economist.com/prospero/2018/01/15/is-art-connoisseur-yet-another-job-threatened-by-technology
  8. ^ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5853383/Jacket-worn-Thomas-Noel-Harris-durin-battle-Waterloo-confirmed-real-thing.html
  9. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/16/waterloo-red-jacket-kept-family-200-years-proves-ancestor-british/
  • Weak keep. While I don't buy GNG or WP:NPROF C7, I do see plenty of journal articles with 100s of citations (including first/last-authored in a field where that matters) in what I believe to be a lower citation field. I think it's enough for WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Andrew J Shortland is covered with google scholar and scopus. He also is found in jstor.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these are valid arguments, practically every single published researcher can be found in google scholar, scopus, and jstor, none of which are evidence of notability. Reywas92Talk 19:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics this information may help with that. The Scopus group is selective with their database and will not accept just any publisher or any work.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. passes WP:NPROF#1 with 9 paper with > 100 citations according to Microsoft Academic. Plus multiple quotes (even though passing) in outlets such as Economist etc. --hroest 00:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shortland is first author on only four of those. And the rule of thumb I've always heard is ten papers with >100 citations (or one with >1000) passes C1. Though never understand how, in practice, such an arbitrary standard is supposed to translate into the ability to write an article that doesn't rely completely on affiliated sources. Or how one would do that from a collection of short quotes in newspapers, for that matter. – Joe (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • My understanding is that citation counts needed varry by discipline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In example, in theology and church history, people do not have the same citation count as in fields like biology, because the density of publication in the field is so much lower -there are many fewer than 1% as many journals and papers, and correspondingly few opportunities for even the most notable person to be cited.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are no hard rules and it does depend a lot on the field. In a low citation field like this 9 papers with > 100 citations is impressive. It would be much less so in Genomics or high energy physics. Also the standard WP:NPROF#1 does not translate into having RS or "ability to write an article" but simply whether an academic had a substantial impact on a field and therefore likely should have an article. Lastly, Shortland is *last author* on some of these articles, which is arguably as relevant (lead PI), meaning he was the head of the lab and directed the research eg for Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt and DISCOVERY, PRODUCTION AND USE OF TIN-BASED OPACIFIERS IN GLASSES, ENAMELS AND GLAZES FROM THE LATE IRON AGE ONWARDS: A REASSESSMENT. --hroest 18:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notability always comes down to the ability to write an article that conforms to our core content policies. That's what notability means and that's what the "N" in NPROF stands for. I have no problem with heuristics like this, but they're not actually in WP:NPROF and, given how subjective they are (archaeological science might be a "low citation field" compared to physics, but it's a "high citation" field compared to theology), ultimately there has to be the ability to substantiate a presumption of notability with actual sources to write an actual article.
        By the way, the PI-as-final-author convention is not always followed in archaeology. The paper on the radiocarbon chronology of Egypt, for example, was part of project directed by Christopher Bronk Ramsey, the head of the Oxford radiocarbon lab, where Shortland had previously been a PhD student and research fellow. Again, our presumptions about significance are not worth as much as sources. – Joe (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm interesting, you are correct in the Science article indeed the first author is the corresponding author. I agree that here the source situation is not great, since independent sources are mostly missing, even if notability is established. However within WP:NPROF there is an agreement that non-independent faculty pages such as this (see General Notes) can be used to write the article, so that should hopefully provide at least a useful stub. Regarding his impact on the field, it seems you are much more qualified to judge this than I am and feel free to advance an argument based on that; but "lack of sources" is not the main issue here. --hroest 15:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 13:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as creator per previous comments and above comments on citations showing significant impact in field of research , especially 9 papers with > 100 citations is impressive ... Shortland is *last author* on some of these articles, which is arguably as relevant (lead PI), meaning he was the head of the lab and directed the research eg for 1 and 2 by hroest. Sputnik12 (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Kvachadze[edit]

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

The alleged Aurillac appearances were likely at academy level as there is no evidence of them at itsrugby nor anywhere else as far as I can see. With no evidence of WP:NRU being met and nothing in terms of WP:GNG in searches, it doesn't look like Kvachadze meets our notability standards for rugby players. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, no notable professional or international appearances. Nothing in searches suggests a GNG pass either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graduate Prospects[edit]

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

not separately notable. The article doesn't make it clear, but the firm is still in existence a/c Companies House. I have not found any 3rd party references that meet WP:NCORP. If they do exist, then a merge with the various services it provides might be a reasonable solution, so I' not nominating the separate aticles on them at this times. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was one of thousands of microstub pages generated (not really "written" in any normal sense) by a now-banned user. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to say "delete" but this seems to be part of Jisc so maybe redirect to that? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There isn't enough sourcing available for this to be notable and IMO the name of the organization is to general to warrant a redirect. It's not like it can't just be mentioned in the other article without a redirect either. So I don't know what other viable option there would be besides deleting the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lansing Country Club[edit]

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

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A run-of-the-mill club no more special than any of the other thousands of golf clubs and courses in the world. Tony Lema died when the plane he was in, crashed on the course, but that doesn't make the course itself notable. Nigej (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) nearlyevil665 10:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:FittGROUP[edit]

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

References are primary sources, unable to find multiple independent and secondary sources that would be a pass of WP:GNG. nearlyevil665 10:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 10:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 10:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Suriname national football team results. Daniel (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suriname national football team 2016[edit]

Suriname national football team 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:DUPLICATE of information already in Suriname national football team results. Govvy (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also including.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per below to Suriname national football team resultsSpiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the relevant sections of the main article. Plausible search terms, and it's not impossible that some or all could be expanded to include material other than results (squads, notable events, etc). There is no reason or benefit to removing the edit history so deletion is uncalled for. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Suriname national football team in 2016" is perhaps a plausible search term but I'm not sure that "Suriname national football team 2016" works as a redirect as it doesn't use correct English. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the existence of tens (at least) of similarly titled pages (e.g. Algeria national football team 2009, All-SEC football team 2007, Bolivia national football team 2002, Cape Verde national football team 2008, Netherlands national football team 2001, etc, etc. I disagree that this is at all implausible. Redirects for versions with "in" can be created too of course, redirects are WP:CHEAP. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all per above; editorially no justification for spreading match results across so many pages. I agree with Thryduulf that we can have redirects with "in" as well as without "in", if people want it. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all as above. GiantSnowman 19:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all No other choice. Tessaracter (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all as above, plausible search terms. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect all per above. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all per all above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all as they could easily be better to be all merged into one page and not all separate. HawkAussie (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted at RfD. Daniel (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indian National Congress (Amarinder)[edit]

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

This article seems to be a result of mischief by a new user. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 10:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Assuming this is about rumours on CM Amarinder Singh and Navjot Singh Sidhu (not that it matters), likely qualifies for WP:A11. - hako9 (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was wrong venue. already deleted via RFD. ✗plicit 23:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indian National Congress (Sidhu)[edit]

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

This article seems to be a result of mischief by a new user. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 10:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Technology with Miyuru Amarasiri episodes[edit]

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

This is part of a series of deleted items for a technology series hosted by the creatimg editor. It appears to be a list of episides, Podcasts. Fails WP:GNG. No point in draftification, Creating editor (COI) moved it to main space. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (of the weak variety). Daniel (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysa Dimoulidou[edit]

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

I couldn't find any reviews, so WP:NAUTHOR is not satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She's a very prolific light novel writer. So far she has published around 30 books (in Greek) in two of the biggest and more reputable Greek publishing houses (Livanis, and Psychogios). She also makes controvertial commnets on several subjects in the social media and/or when interviewed, and bc of that she is usually heavily criticised (but gets more attention at the same time). Check for coverage on her from the Greek media by using her name in Greek Δημουλίδου. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Greek language Wikipedia article about her seems to have about 14 references cited. I don't speak Greek, so I can't really speak to whether those sources are significant/reliable/independent coverage, but, like Chalk19 said, there might be enough Greek language coverage of her to meet WP:GNG NHCLS (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Greek wikipedia article includes a range of sources. Many of them are not great (GoodReads, the publisher's webpage, a blogspot blog), but they include articles in national newspapers: Kathimerini and Eleftherotipia, and entries on the National Book Centre of Greece, which seem sufficient to establish notability. Here Greek-language profile on her publisher's website (https://www.psichogios.gr/el/xryshida-dhmoylidoy) says that one of her books won the first prize of the "Reading Association in Cyprus" and others have won awards from Olympic Air (I'm not sure whether ither of these prizes are a big deal...) Furius (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grinnell Historical Museum[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to North Grinnell Historic District since the museum covers two counties, merger to one doesn't make sense. Valid search, and makes sense to include as the physical building is part of the historic district. Star Mississippi 13:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Keep I am the article author. Edits have been made to link this article to other Wikipedia articles that include publications and research done by the museum (Edith Renfrow Smith and Cornelia Clarke). Citation has also been added to the Grinnell Historical Museum collection in the Drake Community Library Archives. Grincitygal (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We should encourage such GLAM activity and institutions rather than persecuting them. It seems easy to find coverage in sources such as the Iowa Journal of History and Iowa Off the Beaten Path and so it seems apparent that WP:BEFORE has not been done and policies such as WP:ATD and WP:NEXIST considered. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Davidson. Sounds like there is scope for expansion. NemesisAT (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grincitygal, Andrew and NemesisAT. A well-written and fully-sourced historical topic with seven inline cites and two external links. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ilona Carson[edit]

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

Topic appears not to meet the general notability guideline. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet general notability nor notability for BLP. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was unable to find any reliable sources mentioning her at all, except for the non-independent release from her employer. The Emmy her news-team won could make her notable, but I couldn't find any discussion of what the Emmy was or her role in it. Suriname0 (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suriname0, usually in local TV news these are regional Emmys from a relevant chapter of NATAS, not national awards. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. As indicated above, the award mentioned does not confer notability per the "significant award" criterion of WP:ANYBIO. --Kinu t/c 20:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. The majority of comments below address the procedural issues with this debate, although I acknowledge a couple do address SIGCOV etc. Closing as procedural close, so as to not prejudice a future nomination at a more suitable time. Further, potential merge/etc can be dealt with at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers or other talk page discussions. Daniel (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Engagement announcement dress of Catherine Middleton[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green cape dress of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, not quite notable, unlike her wedding dress, propose merge with Draft:Fashion of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Peter Ormond 💬 07:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep The Meghan AfD has not been closed, does not seem to have a consensus, and so it's too soon to be rushing to start more like it. Merger into a draft is problematic because the draft has yet to be accepted and, in any case, would not be done by deletion. Please calm down and slow down. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, there is WP:SIGCOV from multiple magazines, a newspaper, and a major website. These sources have established notablity. NemesisAT (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to speedy keep per other participants. The result of an improperly closed discussion isn't a valid reason for deleting another article. NemesisAT (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Duchess of Cambridge's iconic engagement dress is now available in a rainbow of colours". Harper's Bazaar The. 13 March 2018.
  2. ^ "Kate Middleton's Blue Engagement Dress May Have Triggered The Downfall For Fashion Brand Issa". Elle. 21 July 2017.
  3. ^ "Kate Middleton's Engagement Dress Is Back on the Market for a Steal at $175". Vanity Fair. 18 August 2016.
  4. ^ "The story behind the Duchess of Cambridge's iconic engagement dress, 9 years on". The Telegraph. 16 November 2019.
  • Comment: Quoting users from Meghan AfD: "Coverage is also there for other royal dresses, but we can't have articles on all of them on Wikipedia. Every dress royals wear gets reported in the media. The Travolta dress and the Revenge dress got critical commentary regarding their public impact or the political statement made by the style, timing etc e.g. the revenge dress. This dress has none of that. Also, should articles be made about, for instance, the dress Meghan wore to the Lion King premiere in 2018,[1][2][3][4][5][6] the dress Princess Anne wore to Royal Ascot in 2015,[7][8][9][10][11][12] or the dress Catherine wore to Wimbledon a week ago?"[13][14][15][16][17]

References

  1. ^ "Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Just Arrived at the Lion King Premiere". Town & Country. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  2. ^ "Meghan Markle stunned in a sheer black dress and hugged Beyoncé at 'The Lion King' premiere". Insider. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  3. ^ "Meghan Markle Looks Stunning at London's The Lion King Premiere". Harper's Bazaar. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  4. ^ "Meghan Markle Just Met Beyonce — And Look SO Good Doing It". Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  5. ^ "Meghan Markle Is the Epitome of Class in a LBD at The Lion King Premiere With Prince Harry". PopSugar. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  6. ^ "Meghan Markle Dazzles in Black Dress at 'Lion King' Premiere in London". ET Online. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  7. ^ "Thrifty Princess Anne attends the Royal Ascot in one of her outfits...from 35 YEARS AGO". Express. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  8. ^ "Princess Anne Re-Wears a Yellow Coat to Royal Ascot". Glamour.
  9. ^ "Princess Anne Recycled a Nearly 40-Year-Old Outfit Yesterday". Town & Country. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  10. ^ "Princess Anne's 35-year-old Ascot outfit – stylewatch". The Guardian. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  11. ^ "Princess Anne Recycles 35-Year-Old Outfit for Royal Ascot! You Have to See Her Rewear". People. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  12. ^ "Princess Anne recycles a cream and navy outfit first seen in 1980". Prima. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  13. ^ "Kate Middleton Wears a Pink Belted Dress to the Final Day of Wimbledon". Harper's Bazaar. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  14. ^ "Kate Middleton Wore A Gorgeous Belted Baby Pink Dress To Wimbledon's Men's Singles Finals". Elle. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  15. ^ "Kate Middleton Was Wimbledon's Chicest Spectator in a Belted Baby Pink Dress". InStyle. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  16. ^ "Kate Middleton looks incredible in baby pink dress as she steps out at Wimbledon again". Hello!. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  17. ^ "The Duchess Of Cambridge Attended Two Sports Matches With An Elegant Ensemble For Each". British Vogue. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  • Also, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:SUSTAINED. Peter Ormond 💬 16:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. With the topic article drafts being developed, there’s no reason this couldn’t have waited for a merge proposal instead of rushing to AfD. I echo Andrew’s advice to slow down here. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Well, this is not a normal dress that she would wear randomly on an outing. It is in the same category as her wedding dress, something that she would only wear once in her lifetime. And as other users pointed out, sustained and continuous coverage is the reason for the subject's notability. I'd suggest keeping the article at this point. A potential merge could be discussed once the draft on her fashion is finally done. Keivan.fTalk 18:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Judge each article on its own sources, if someone is happy to write an article on those topics and can find adequate sourcing to pass WP:GNG, I say go ahead. NemesisAT (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. With no further input since the 2 relists, it doesn't seem likely this is going to get any clear consensus. The suggestion to merge or redirect into Kunwar or even Kunwar (surname) is something that can be done outside of the AfD. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kunwar (title)[edit]

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

It seems to be a disambiguation page as similar page i.e a list article exist titled Kunwar, which contains name of people with Kunwar surname. It should be deleted and few names present here should be included in that particular article. Heba Aisha (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kunwar (title) of Rajput tribes being used IN FRONT of people's names has far too long a history in the Indian subcontinent – India, Pakistan and Nepal, to be Deleted because it's still widely used in Pakistan, India and Nepal by people. I fully realize Wikipedia guidelines discourage it from being used in its Article Titles, but I see 'titles' such as Emperor, King, Lord, Sir, Chaudhry, Raja, Khan used all the time in the Wikipedia Infoboxes. As long as name titles are being used in the Real World out there by the people themselves, it would be unrealistic for Wikipedia to impose a total ban on the use of name titles on this encyclopedia. Does Encyclopedia Britannica call a King, a King in the main body of its articles? Kunwar (title) and Kunwar (surname) exist as separate Wikipedia articles for a very good reason. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added 2 new references and 5 more categories to improve the article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — Page is about same topic as of Kunwar and Kunwar (surname). It'll be better if we can merge all of these into one page (subjected to Notability). ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brainsprep[edit]

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

No indication of any importance, but software applications do not have a CSD. Does not have SIGCOV. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a new user and 14 minutes after the page was created you nominated it for deletion? What happened to don't bite the newcomers? --Whiteguru (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whiteguru, the article creator is not a new user: they have been on WP since 2014 but their prior articles (on associated companies such as Microflick Software Corporation and Brainsapp) have been deleted. See User talk:Jithinrajiv (which also includes COI notices in both 2014 and 2017). AllyD (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How do we know exactly that the article violates WP:COI as per the template on the page? --ExcutientTalk 10:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Excutient: COI is not relevant in my mind to this AfD, as this software application simply does not pass any notability standard and this is the main thing to evaluate here. If this was an article on a company (and not an app), I would've A7ed it. However, if you were to compare the user name of the creator and the founder of the company that created the application then the COI is evident.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 11:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't qualify our notability guidelines at Wikipedia. Might become notable in future but delete for now. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure promotion. --- Possibly ☎ 16:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH - seems to have not accrued the reliable, in-depth coverage that would be needed to establish notability. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neither assertion nor evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A non notable company.Could not find any sourcesAlphaonekannan (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Peace TV. Daniel (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peace TV Urdu[edit]

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

The Urdu-language service does not appear to have standalone notability from Peace TV, its parent channel. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Ali Pabrai[edit]

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

CEO of non-notable company. Virtually no coverage from third party sources. Speaking engagements and blog posts do not count towards WP:GNG. KH-1 (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article is basically an advertisement for this person. There are insufficient references and a poorly written article. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, I wanted to say Draftify but not seeing any signs of notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify. Daniel (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kanakam Kaamini Kalaham[edit]

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

Non notable future film, fails WP:NFF as production wasn't notable. Having a teaser trailer released does not establish notability. Should be moved back to draft until release, or outright deleted.

PROD removed by article creator. Message left on my talk page was " Kanakan kaamini kalaham is a notable film in South India which has a lead like great actor Nivin Pauly. I don't know why you proposed for a deletion. Please undo it."

Notable actor, maybe...but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I feel this article is WP:TOOSOON and should be moved to draft or deleted until release. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (withdrawn). Daniel (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vicary Gibbs, 6th Baron Aldenham[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Vicary Gibbs, 6th Baron Aldenham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not given due to title or family as per WP:BIOFAMILY. Current sources are not really RS and simply list Gibbs as a hereditary peer with his title etc. I cannot seem to find any other sources discussing Gibbs bar a small entry in a trade journal (Contify Energy News) regarding his appointment as CFO of an oil and gas company. This hardly confers notability. In the previous AfD discussion for this page a keep decision was reached due to Gibbs' time in the House of Lords, as per WP:POLITICIAN. However Gibbs was in the House of Lords for just 3 years (24 July 1986 - 11 November 1999) in which time he attended parliament just 12 times and never voted. That is certainly not a notable political career. As far as my research can tell, he has never been written about in a political context. I cannot imagine a person with a similar record and coverage from another country being deemed notable. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn by nominator as my esteemed colleagues below have correctly identified that my issue is with the negligently low standards of WP:POLITICIAN. In the context of House of Lords peers this seems quite ridiculous as often Lords inherited their political seat and many times never even voted or engaged in politics let alone do anything else notable. I’m sure having Wikipedia pages nicely sures up their reputation though. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as reflected in WP:NPOL, there's longstanding consensus that national-level legislators are de facto notable. And that guideline was applied less than two months ago with regard to this very article, resulting in a clear keep consensus. Renominating so quickly after a firm keep vote is generally discouraged, particularly when nothing has changed. The nominator's objection seems to have less to do with this article and more with NPOL itself. But unless and until NPOL is changed, I'll continue to support keeping this article so "that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless" of the perceived sourcing issues. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable per WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national legislature. This even covers members of rubber-stamping legislatures in totalitarian countries, so it clearly covers the House of Lords. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dead at 17[edit]

Dead at 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a film, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically deemed "inherently" notable just because it's technically possible to verify that they exist -- the notability test hinges on evidence of distinction, such as notable film awards or reviews from established film critics in real media (i.e. not the user-generated comments in IMDb or an IMDb clone.) But the references here are Amazon, Letterboxd and other IMDB-like film directories, which are not notability-supporting sources, and even on a WP:BEFORE search for stronger sources, about all I can find is this, which is a start but not in and of itself enough if it's the only real source on the table. Bearcat (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, review found at CineMagazine. [[13]], not enough for WP:NFILM, but a start. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As provided by nominator and Donaldd23, the two links of reviews in reliable sources, are more than sufficient to establish the film's notability. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any indication that CineMagazine is a reliable source for the purposes of building the notability of a film; it looks for all the world like a blog, and I can't find any indication whatsoever that it's actually a real or reliable magazine. It's not "everything is assumed to be a reliable source until proven otherwise"; the burden of proof lays on showing that it is a reliable source before it can be used, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CineMagazine is an independent source with editorial oversight and a quick search of past AfDs will show it is used in many discussions to satisfy notability requirements. Not sure if an actual discussion on it has ever taken place, you are free to start one, but until then you can check their about page, which shows independent critics and an editor [[14]]. It is a Dutch website, and just because it uses the word 'magazine' does not necessarily mean that there is an actual print edition. It is not a blog. It appears to pass WP:SOURCE, which stats "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form"." Which Cinemagazine appears to pass as it has been used in dozens of discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It may be also noted that a film's standing is likewise capable of being judged on the basis of the cast and crew's credits. In the case at hand, the director, editor and nine cast member all have Wikipedia entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. CineMagazine may be usable, but it's not the strongest source and not one that would stand on its own as far as keeping an article goes. I tried sifting through the newspaper archives, but could find little for this other than TV listings of it being shown, which is fairly typical for any type of film. At best the other sources are routine database listings, which cannot establish notability. They can show that the film exists, but existing isn't notability. Nor is notability inherited by the notability of a notable cast or crew. It may make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it's not a guarantee. This just looks to be a film that, despite having known actors in it, just sailed under the radar. This is kind of the norm for direct to video and made for TV films, to be honest. (Can't tell which it is, just that it's one or the other.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Agreed. I wasn't arguing for keep with the CineMagazine review, just stating that I found it. The article would need more than just the one review to be kept. Thanks. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of reliable sources. I don't think this article meets the significant coverage requirement, as ReaderofthePack notes above. Edittac (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation's goals[edit]

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

An article on a very general topic indeed, but which essentially just the uncritical recapitulation of the very general views of a notable writer on organization theory-- his works are hte only substantial references. I considered whether they might be merged into the article on Mintzberg, but I doubt they are in any sense his distinctive ideas. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is "unencyclopedic topic" a valid reason to delete? This just seems way, way too general. Mlb96 (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to strategic planning, or delete. Chris857 (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT and WP:CFORK. The title isn't appropriate (it should be organizational goals), the content seems to be unduly promoting Mr. Mintzberg, and I don't see Strategic planning as a great target. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Organisational ideology also needs a delete or redirect; I'm not finding another article on companies with specific ideological values though, so I can't justify calling it a CFORK. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
see also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organisational ideology DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flanor[edit]

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

A tiny, home-based, non-notable publishing house. Some of their authors are individually notable and published their main work elsewhere. Fails WP:NORG. WP:NOTINHERETED also seems to apply. gidonb (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article was created and developed by its principal, who is a blocked sockpuppeteer at nlwiki.[15][16] Nlwiki has twice deleted its equivalent.[17]. A nomination of the principal was initiated by another user. If WH survives this nomination, Flanor can be redirected there. gidonb (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did not survive hence the red link above. It basically leads to this discussion. gidonb (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kiki Sanford. Content can be merged from behind the redirect at editorial discretion. Daniel (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Week in Science[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The previous deletion discussion ended in keep because some editors claimed that lots of blogs mention the podcast, which does absolutely nothing to establish notability. After doing some google searches I found that Kiki Sanford has written for sciencemag.org so any sources from that magazine are not independent. I came across a few trivial mentions in various sources and I wouldn't be surprised if Kiki is notable, but the podcast does not WP:INHERIT her notability. I found a single source that has slightly more than a trivial mention, but it's still less than 100 words of content (source I found). TipsyElephant (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and condense (or redirect) to Kiki Sanford. The keep arguments in the previous AFD provided assertions but no actual evidence of notability, basically a combination of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITEXISTS and WP:ASSERTN. I am not finding any evidence of WP:WEBCRIT and especially not WP:GNG. None of the current 3 sources in the article are independent: the site itself, Dr. Sanford's resume, and the ACF Newsource ref. which appears to be a press release. The fastweb.it source is a passing mention, although it makes the very bold assertion of "undoubtedly" the most famous science podcast in the world. There is a brief profile published by UC Davis, which is not very independent. The YouTube Channel has 14.5k subscribers (is that a lot? I don't know YouTube or podcast trends), and the Twitter account has 4.5k followers. (Science Friday has over 173k YouTube subscribers, so maybe the "most famous in the world" claim is in fact doubtable). The podcast seems to pop up several podcast directories, but that of course doesn't make it notable. The podcast's rather commonplace title somewhat hinders research (false positives). If there is no independent, significant coverage, then this cannot realistically be expanded without becoming more promotional, essentially a second official website. Lastly, I think it's just a bit unnerving that the official site invites fans (minions?) to edit the show's Wikipedia article as a "Minion project". --Animalparty! (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kiki Sanford. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Gas[edit]

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

Article about a film with no reliably sourced claim to passing WP:NFILM. The notability claim here is that it exists, and the only "sources" present are IMDb and its own self-published production website about itself -- but proving that the film exists is not sufficient in and of itself to secure inclusion in Wikipedia, and instead we require indicators such as notable film awards or reviews by critics in major media. On a search for better sourcing, however, the only solid sources I can find are one blurby and unbylined review in Film Threat and a single article in the director's hometown newspaper on the occasion of its local premiere, which isn't enough to get it over the bar (not least because even from those two sources combined I still can't cobble together a functional description of what the film is about) — otherwise, all I get is glancing namechecks of its existence in later coverage of the director or the cast members, which doesn't help at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a search found nothing to indicate that Bearcat's extensive source analysis is incorrect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the Film Threat brief review is the closest this seems to get to being notable and it isn't enough on its own Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LemonAid[edit]

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

Promotional article by SPA. No evidence this was ever notable. WP:BEFORE shows only other entities and one-off activities using the same pun as their name. Tagged since 2016; no reasonable prospect of organic improvement. PROD removed claiming sources, but not adding them. David Gerard (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

n.b.: should probably be redirected to Keith Lemon's LemonAid, the most notable usage of the word in en:wp. de:Lemonaid Beverages doesn't have an English article yet - David Gerard (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cleaned up a dead link, but the overall sourcing is poor. I did a simple Google search and can't find enough coverage to suggest the company passes WP:NCORP. The aforementioned editor who contested the PROD has a little time to see if he has more luck than I did finding sources. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 GameShark#Brand history. Daniel (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

InterAct[edit]

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

Promotional article, created by banned vandal. No evidence of notability, even when the company existed; third-party sources are promotional churnalism. Nothing in a WP:BEFORE, let alone anything of WP:CORPDEPTH. No reasonable prospect of organic improvement. PROD removed, but with no attention to the sourcing issues. David Gerard (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect InterAct should redirect to GameShark#Brand_history. I guess the page was a redirect to Game Shark for roughly seven years, but then a single-purpose account transformed it to talk about unrelated company using sketchy / self-serving source material. While the InterAct currently described in the page is obscure, the InterAct that created Game Shark has a fair number of published references [18] [19] [20] [21] and I feel that is enough to warrant having a redirect. --Elephanthunter (talk) 06:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motarjem[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as the references provided are reliable and prove notability. The Haddadian-Moghaddam source is especially compelling saying that the journal is 'essential' to the development of translation in Iran. It seems like this is actually quite an important publishing house in Iran given many hits when searching come from bibliographies and footnotes. I assume a Farsi speaker would be able to provide RS from Iranian sources. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The first source is good enough to prove notability. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets #3 and #4 of WP:NMEDIA as per Vladimir's arguments Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_July_20&oldid=1039997289"