Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 15	June 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italygate conspiracy theory[edit]

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

This doesn't seem notable enough to be its own topic, given the shortage of sources actually covering the subject. Since their ideologies are practically the same (the article itself describes this theory as "QAnon-adjacent", I think this article should be merged to the main QAnon article, with the appropriate content to go with it. Love of Corey (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree due to above reasons, just I'd prefer to see this in Attempts to overturn the 2020 Election, but I'm indifferent on which article.InvadingInvader (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as creator: I am inclined to agree to a merge but keeping the current page as a redirect (Italygate and Italy gate both link there as redirects). I don't think the QAnon article is the best to merge it into (not all of the references mention it); I'd also prefer to merge into Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. – Bangalamania (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Six months after first reporting,^[1] ongoing and deepening international RS coverage;^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] satisfies EVENT.

References

^ Caldera, Camille (8 January 2021). "Fact check: Claims of electoral fraud in Rome, dubbed 'ItalyGate,' are baseless". USA TODAY.
^ "'Italygate' election conspiracy theory was pushed by two firms led by woman who also falsely claimed $30 million mansion was hers". Washington Post. 19 June 2021.
^ "The craziest conspiracy theory out of Trump's White House - CNN Video". 17 June 2021.
^ "Analysis - 'Pure insanity': Here's perhaps the craziest election fraud conspiracy the Trump team pushed". Washington Post. 15 June 2021.
^ "Usa, Nyt: «Trump voleva che Fbi indagasse su teoria complottista Italygate»". Il Sole 24 ORE (in Italian). 6 June 2021.
^ Sarcina, Giuseppe (5 June 2021). "Italygate, la teoria (falsa) dei voti truccati via satellite da Obama e Renzi per far vincere Biden". Corriere della Sera (in Italian).

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I don't see a good merge target - QAnon is only adjacent and already quite large. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG demonstrated by Goldsztajn. The theory's claims are much less important than the story of its origin and promotion. A good article will give context to future developments.HouseOfChange (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Has more than sufficient references in WP:RS over at least 6 months (January - June 2021) to meet WP:GNG. Banana Republic (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks to meet WP:GNG.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 02:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rony Tan[edit]

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

This was sort of inevitable. Nommed for A7 (by me) when it was a four-line stub, previously deleted, nommed for G12 late last year, this is an article about a totally non-notable person, who once achieved limited coverage for saying some daft and mildly unpleasant things. Fails WP:GNG let alone anything else. Now off to nominate Lighthouse Evangelism, too - his 'church'. Note Reuters blog as a source, Straits Times is a 'mirror' to 'Buddhist Door' which appears to misrepresent ST as a source (it doesn't link). Basically bunkum and cruft. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, no lasting notability. I also wonder if the extensive quoting of his comments constitute a copyright violation. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment However subject seems notable but lack of reliable references which are independent of the subject. GermanKity (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is the article needs cleanup and improvement, not deletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Domingo Pilarte[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP HeinzMaster (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the newspaper articles listed in the article look promising but are not linked. Also for source searchers please note that there is a high profile MMA fighter of the same name, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- He looks to me as if he was a significant itinerant healing evangelist. No doubt the newspaper articles only represnet a sample of his work. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject looks notable to me but lack of online references and that is obvious in 1950s and 60s there is no trending internet. GermanKity (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, seems to notable at a particular point. Grandruskiy48 • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Terrible article but the consideration here is notability. I moved the general references from the "External links". I fear the "inline citation" tag, that already has reached career status (since September 2010), will be a permanent fixture. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Tunahan Bodur[edit]

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

Weird situation -- obviously promotional, obviously some level of falsification, possibly a full-blown hoax. Only source is a press release that might be about a different person entirely. IMDb credits are pretty sus, minor roles in films he probably wasn't in. Was deleted at AfD before (as 'speedy delete', so technically not G4 by a strict definition), and deleted multiple times on trwiki. Vaticidalprophet 23:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of available references subject does not pass WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I have the same thoughts as two days ago: non-notable, massive headache for multiple weeks now. No signs of meeting NACTOR and GNG. ~Styyx II ^Talk? 12:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per rule. Trakinwiki (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found a few more sources, but they are all in Turkish and look like PR. Based on this he is not notable. Peter303x (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page have been opened on many different wikis and have been deleted many times because it isn't notable (rules are different on each wiki but a note for enwiki). I watched the closing credits of movies/TV series, this person's name wasn't in these closing credits. Probably it is fake IMDB page. There are some Turkish sources that they mention him, but they aren't reliable. (If see the times) When they were published, they were published close time to each other. The content looks like PR work. Uncitoyen (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Caldwell[edit]

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

Prod removed, but the two citations added are still just statistical entries and a mere photo credit without significant coverage showing notability and failing NSPORTS Reywas92^Talk 17:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources are statistical/match reports/non-independent profiles; no evidence of SIGCOV by IRS. JoelleJay (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buena Suerte (newspaper)[edit]

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

Creator just expanded this article in response to the PROD, but the same issue remains: a lack of independent, in depth coverage to establish notability for Buena Suerte. There's a case to be made for possible notability for Emilio Martinez-Paula, but it's iffy and there's no article there yet for this to be merged to. Star Mississippi 17:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of complete discussion, the creator has weighed in with a keep on the talk page. Amelianydia is new to Wikipedia and may not make it here so I told her I'd note the comment here for full consensus. Star Mississippi 14:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References do not indicates the notability of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, no reliable news coverage available fails general notability. Grandruskiy48 • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sardi Strugaj[edit]

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

BLP of a young singer who has taken part in a music competition and performed in a festival but has no claim of notability. WP:REALITYSINGER suggests redirecting to his band, but there’s no article on them to redirect to. Mccapra (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources in the article or in searches. The accomplishments listed, even if accepted at face value, would not qualify for WP:NMUSIC, either. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eggishorn.4meter4 (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Badger[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Simply not notable as per WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Restricting a news search to <"Jesse Badger" actor> returns one real hit, which is a one-line mention in a cast list. Widening the search by leaving off "actor", things don't get much better. He seems more notable (in inverted commas) for having introduced rickshaw taxis into Melbourne than his acting. Found him on Twitter and he has a following of 172, which is a massive fail of #2 WP:NACTOR. Schwede 66 22:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schwede 66 22:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Schwede 66 22:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Schwede 66 22:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, non notable actor. GermanKity (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good looking, good start to an acting career, but references do not demonstrate WP:GNG. Nexus000 (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new here so I don't know what to do other than say I think being in 2 major cult tv series is notable to me, and the article is well referenced. What do you define as notable? I would suggest keeping the page. I spent a lot of time referencing and checking on things as I learned about the actors work. Badger will probably have more work in future so I think it's worth keeping.Grapepinky (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapepinky: If you want to find out how "notable" is defined, click on the links that various editors (including me in the deletion statement) have posted and read those pages. That'll give you an idea how this works on Wikipedia. Schwede 66 03:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per rul non notable actor. Trakinwiki (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough news coverage or significant roles to meet WP:ENT. Peter303x (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources used are not trustworthy. The article is not much notable.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Nexus000 (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Creek, Idaho[edit]

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

This one seems to be another case of GNIS map misreading. Every topo I find, save one, shows this as "Gold Creek Campground"; the exception has a symbol for a campground and the words "Gold Creek" next to it, both in red. GNIS says this name was taken off the topos, so I have to think its classification as a "populated place" is, at best, misconstrued. At any rate the listing doesn't begin to constitute evidence for a town, and it's the sole source. Mangoe (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a one-sentence stub which fails to establish why this locale is notable.TH1980 (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable place that doesn't meet WP:NGEO thanks to likely not being a populated place.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Youth Center[edit]

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

If this passes WP:BEFORE, it barely passes. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its rather promotional, but that does not mean its not notable.Rathfelder (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some major changes have been made to the article. Sections that were deemed promotional along with any or all promotional words have been removed. Ambiguous links have been adjusted to align it with the guidelines of Wikipedia.Sana Amjad Kiyani (Contribs) (Talk) 06:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article is notable. Please suggest if any other changes are required to perfect it further.Sana Amjad Kiyani (Contribs) (Talk) 06:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to the 'reliance on the primary sources', additional credible information sources have been added to the article even multiple sources have cited wherever available. Sana Amjad Kiyani (Contribs) (Talk) 07:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With this, changes have been made in all aspects highlighted for improvement to ensure that the article doesn't get deleted. Any further feedback will also be taken into consideration. Sana Amjad Kiyani (Contribs) (Talk) 07:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs cleanup, but this is not the place for cleanup. It is clearly notable, multiple RS presented in the article, it's a thing of significance in the Emirates. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With government ties and multiple RS, it clearly passes WP:SIGCOV. AFD is not cleanup.4meter4 (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Boehm[edit]

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

Fails GNG lacks news coverage Kieem trra (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kieem trra (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep Passes WP:GNG per news available in reliable sources such as [1] [2][3][4][5]. Jaysonsands (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G11, the article is irretrievably promotional. If the person is notable, somebody who is not likely a paid editor should write a new article. Sandstein 12:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I have improved the article and removed promo type content. I hope its ok now. Jaysonsands (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaysonsands, it still reads like a promotional CV, consisting of little more than a list of awards. Such awards are typically self-awarded by the respective industry and therefore not much more than a promotional vehicle. If there's not more to the biography than a list of awards, I'm still in favor of deletion. Sandstein 13:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I have removed the awards given by magazine. Only remained those which are notable ones. Article seems ok now and by seeing WP:RS in multiple sources it passes WP:GNG. Jaysonsands (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG as per available sources and improvements done by Jaysonsands. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's lots of sources, but we need sources to pass WP:GNG, and I believe only the USA Today/Des Moines Register article currently qualifies. All the rest have issues, either not being independent (Forbes) or not being significant coverage/just quoting him (NY Times, Chicago Tribune). Note however that I currently consider my vote a "strong" delete, it probably only needs one more good, in-depth article directly on him to be kept. I also share the promotional concerns, though they have been addressed to a point where G11 no longer clearly applies. SportingFlyer T·C 16:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO ie. no well-known and significant honor/award received, not made a widely recognised contribution in their field, nor WP:GNG, sources cited in the article are not significant, the USAToday/Des Moines article although ok as a source is not enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. The James Beard Award is a widely recognized major award in the culinary industry. The James Beard Award is to the food industry what the Oscars is for the film industery. It's a big deal to win, and winning gets coverage in major media outlets. Further, there seems to be enough coverage here to pass WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He passes in WP:ANYBIO, point 1. There are at least two reputable sources (USA Today and Des Moines) that do significant coverage. In addition, he is co-founded of an award-winning restaurant. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:ANYBIO criteria as per receiving major award in the culinary industry. Grandruskiy48 • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As this will likely close soon I don't have time to go too in-depth but promotional issues has been addressed. The subject is the front man for the company and when many Chicago restaurants closed (pandemic), that included the groups Bellemore, the company is now expanding. The restaurant Girl & The Goat with partner and Top Chef Stephanie Izard is slated to open in Los Angeles. Chef Lee Wolen (Jean Banchet Award, James Beard Foundation Award nomanee, and Michelin Star chef) is now a partner and opened GG’s Chicken Shop and is involved in the new (very high end) luxury health and social club (and riverfront restaurant) "BIÂN" with the subject as chairman. Along with being a repeat judge on a national cook show I see enough coverage to advance notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (have struck out my "delete" above), revisiting this, having (jointly) won a james beard award and been nominated several times, boehm does meet anybio. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating hard for deletion, but I did check back in on this and I'm uncomfortable with quoting ANYBIO when GNG hasn't quite been demonstrated. Would still like an additional source. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, in just quickly searching for a few additional sources I found several additions in under ten minutes. This article from Food and Wine magazine reviews a TED Talk he presented. This source verifies he was the commencement speaker at the The Culinary Institute of America. This newspaper article covers his James Beard Award win. In subscription access databases like ProQuest, my university library has several articles with significant coverage in : "Kevin Boehm + Rob Katz". Hospitality Design. 37 (5): 152. 2015-07-01.; Phil Vettel (2011-04-07). E-zine names 18 'rising stars' in Chicago's restaurant galaxy. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help); and Phil Vettel (2011-11-03). C'est la Vie?: Paul Virant's city restaurant is reminiscent of his suburban spot, and that's a good thing. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help). Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the source search, but none of those make me go, "oh, he's clearly notable!" for various reasons, but it's not really worth arguing over. SportingFlyer T·C 11:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Njedeh Anthony[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. The article creator admits they are being paid by the author and has been creating articles for all the individual books (also not notable) ~~as well as inserting the author's name in lists~~. ... discospinster _talk 20:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had placed a PROD tag on the article earlier. My rationale was : "No indication that this author meets the requirements of WP:BIO. Furthermore, the author of the article has a blatant WP:COI as he made clear at Draft talk:Njedeh Anthony." Pichpich (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - paid-for spam, nothing found in a search that would indicate WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR could be demonstrated Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. COI here is a major concern especially. A S U K I T E 00:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. nothing to passes notability. fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR.Princess of Ara_(talk) 08:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR as did the declined draft. The author has spent days promoting this author and ignoring warnings about COI and disclosing paid editing. Notfrompedro (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely none of the references are reliable or notability-building sources, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over WP:GNG on reliable and notability-supporting sources. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which people are automatically entitled to have articles just because they exist — we're an encyclopedia, on which certain specific standards of notability have to be attained, and a certain specific quality and depth of coverage in real reliable sources has to be present to verify the attainment of said standards, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Disclosed paid editing spam, possibly because the creator thought disclosure was a free pass dudhhr_Contribs 20:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Paid editing. Nexus000 (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese land grabbing[edit]

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

This page does not really refer to an exact concept or topic, but is a mish-mash of topics/events already covered in territorial disputes of China, land grabbing, and debt-trap diplomacy with more precision. Amigao (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn’t appear to be independently notable enough to justify an article of its own. Merge content into Belt_and_Road_Initiative#Reactions_and_criticism. CutePeach (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a hopelessly POV title that can only lead to POV editing. There are other articles, as stated above, under titles that can treat these issues in a much more neutral way. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zeng (German family name)[edit]

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

Stub about a German surname. There is nothing particularly notable about it - like all surnames, it appears in records. This seems better suited to ancestry.com than Wikipedia. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTGENEALOGY, and no one with the German variant of this name has a Wikipedia article as far as I can tell. Aspening (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple and added them to the article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fully admit I passed on reviewing this because I didn't think it was notable but wasn't entirely sure what to do with it, glad that Mccapra is braver than I. :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not relevant for an encyclopedia. Geschichte (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:HEY, the notable holders of the surname, and the updated citations. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are records mentioning pretty much any surname, and that mere fact doesn’t make them notable. Two bluelinked articles to people with the name doesn’t even meet the standards of a disambiguation page, never mind a full article. Mccapra (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Steamboat2020 (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs further discussion since the article has been improved
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all above. Grandruskiy48 • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like most other surname pages, this is a WP:SETINDEX, not an ordinary article or disambiguation page, and should be judged according to the relevant guidelines. (See also the how-to essay Wikipedia:Name pages.) I added two more entries (inter-language links to the German Wikipedia) for notable people with the name. Even if the page were just the list alone, that would be enough to keep. Note that red links to notable entries are accepted (in contrast to a disambiguation page). Also, most surname pages do not bother to include background information about the name, but it is neither required nor forbidden (again, in contrast to a disambiguation page). Adumbrativus (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The article idea seems to fit WP:SETINDEX but I have an issue with unsourced (and tagged) content that could be OR. This also includes content in the "Prevalence" section. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYIK[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The station is licensed per last year's NTC listing as it indicates an operator having a station. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:BCAST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Astig. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, and WP:BCAST is not an SNG which is specifically exempt from needing to meet GNG, so merely meeting it isn't enough to keep the article; WP:NOTDIRECTORY would also apply. I can't find any reliable secondary coverage of this radio station, though it's not impossible that I've missed some in a foreign language - if I have, please ping me. SportingFlyer T·C 14:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NMEDIA is a notability recommendation. Notability guideline discussion to setup talking points for the RfC to make NMEDIA/BCAST a Guideline is ongoing at WT:N. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SportingFlyer. WP:NMEDIA is not a guideline, and I disagree with its premise (the idea that media outlets deserve some sort of exemption from the GNG). Unless and until a community consensus, expressed at an RfC, concludes that NMEDIA is correct, I will simply apply the GNG, which this topic does not pass. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tony A. Al-halab Lebtimes 06:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no evidence whatsoever that this topic has the level of coverage required to meet WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BCAST per Astig's and Neutralhomer's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as "no consensus", but was challenged, so relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I disagree with the premises (such as they are) advanced by those !voting keep. Superstig's is pretty much a variation on WP:ITEXISTS, and argues—incorrectly—that this is sufficient to pass our notability guidelines; the same goes, of course, for 'per astig'. There's a slightly curious 'Keep Tony A.', and I have no idea how to pass that as either an argument, or indeed, an argument to avoid. Neutralhomer does admittedly challenge SpportingFlyer, but this challenge is based on an as-yet unresolved RfC, so of less value, unfortunately, right now, as it might be in future discussions. SBKSSP—the article's creator—argues in support of two already less that effectual arguments.
For the record, there has been little to no independent, third party coverage of the station in reliable sources, either news outlets or literature. While WP:OFFLINE is often relevant with non-English, non-Western topics, this is sufficiently recent that a solid digital footprint would be expected. There is none. So, the article fails WP:NORG also. ——Serial 19:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)|[reply]
- Serial Number 54129 I just want to say that this is one of the most well-thought-out, well-explained, takes-all-sides-into-account, and polite AfD response I have ever seen, that I ain't even mad that it's a "Delete". Well done! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Serial Number 54129, how can my argument be a variation on WP:ITEXISTS if I only use WP:NMEDIA, which is in fact a notability recommendation? If only I said "The station exists per blah blah blah", then it's a form of ITEXISTS. My argument is much farther from that and therefore is never, will never be and still never be a variation of ITEXISTS. Have some common sense, men. 🙂 ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense resounds abounds around. You literally said "keep, it's on this list of stations" (the essence of WP:EXISTS), followed by an unsubstantiated claim that an article of literally less than 30 words passes WP:BCAST, even though it's sole sourcing is to that same list that proves it exists and nothing else. D'oh! ——Serial 11:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly doesn't meet GNG. --littleb2009 (^she/_her) (talk • contribs) 22:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We shouldn't be creating articles simply because a subject exists. It should also be notable. This is why we have guidelines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This rings true for why secondary schools are not automatically notable. So too does it ring true for radio stations or really any subject. I agree we should use common sense. I wish we used it more, especially on historical subjects where fewer sources may be found. Common sense does not mean we abandon reason. The guidelines provide that reason. Other than its "call sign", why is this radio station different than any other? What sets it apart from them and gives it notability? If you can't tell me then how I am I supposed to know? --ARose Wolf 15:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of buildings with the most floors by country[edit]

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

Direct copy of List of tallest buildings by country. Apparently created after content dispute at that article. It is the same article, and that article includes the number of floors each structure has. It is unclear whether there are any differences in reality (ie is there a building that has more floors but is shorter), and I can guarantee the author of this article has not cross-checked that data. This is just a forked list that serves no proper purpose and has not been verified. Again, it's identical (no proper credit given, either, but that's tangential). ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify - there are apparently some changes (presumably what led to conflict at the former article), but the articles are still substantially identical, and each entry has not been verified. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A10. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable cross categorisation. Plethora of self published sources. Clearly original research. Ajf773 (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of tallest buildings by country. We don't need two identical copies of the same article. JIP | Talk 17:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicate list. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with reservations - I was one of the users that was involved in the content dispute on the List of tallest buildings by country article that El Cid mentioned. Basically, there were disagreements over what criteria should have been used to determine the heights of the tallest buildings in each country. Traditionally, Wikipedia has used architectural height for this purpose, which correlates to what reliable skyscraper agencies such as the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat utilize (as explained on Page III of the attached document). However, other users disagreed and believed the total number of floors should dictate the buildings included on the tallest buildings list by country. I am assuming this article arose as a resolution to the dispute at hand.

I would like to emphasize that the content of this article is different than the information provided at the List of tallest buildings by country article. This article sorts building heights by floor count, whereas the latter does so by height above a specified entrance (a completely different measurement). Moreover, I believe that this article does not have to be deleted. After all, Wikipedia already has a list of buildings with 100 or more stories. Also, just like how List of tallest buildings by country expands upon information provided at List of tallest buildings, this article could elaborate on the information provided in the 100+ floors list. However, in addition to the sourcing issues that El Cid mentioned, I have a couple of content concerns that will need to be addressed if this article is not deleted.

Finally, I will invite the other users involved in the aforementioned content dispute to provide their opinions on this discussion: @MaxPlays:, @Bartzyx:, @Jklamo:, @Henrysz:, and @Scheridon:. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think. Although I agree that the content is slightly different (e.g. Willis Tower has more floors than One WTC), I do not believe it is notable enough to warrant its own article. I also want to clarify that only one single user disagreed in the aforementioned content dispute, did not participate at all in discussion, and the same created this article. I would leave it to that user to deliver a compelling argument to save this article. In the absence of such, I see no reason to keep it. Bartzyx (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Under the premise that it is a direct copy of the list by tallest, it seems obvious to delete, but that is not true. (ex. Federation tower in Russia has more floors than the Lakhta center, but is shorter) I feel like the main point of measuring by floors is to get rid of the 'advantage' that buildings with tall spires or uninhabitable architectural features have like One WTC or Merdeka 118, but to minimise the effect of different heights per floor, in my opinion 'inhabitable' height should be measured by "highest usable floor" instead. Most sources measure by architectural height so it technically counts as original research too? And the title doesn't make sense. This section has been unhelpful enough already, TLDR I feel like floor count is not a very useful measurement, and one that most sources don't list, because it differs between buildings so this article won't be of much use. henrysz ▪ 💬 ▪ 📜 03:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The scope of the list is a bit different from List of tallest buildings by country. However, while the lists based on height by country are compiled by external sources (see here or here), I am not aware of any external list listing the tallest building by country by the number of floors. --Jklamo (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adair, Idaho[edit]

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

An extremely isolated Milwaukee Road station which was discontinued around 1920. Topos show a few buildings up against the tracks, but aerials seem to show them as MoW sheds. Other than the abandonment application, I found nothing of substance. Mangoe (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was able to find some evidence that there were some mines nearby in the early 20th century [6] [7], but no evidence that the community was ever actually populated or had anything more than trivial mentions, so it still fails WP:GEOLAND. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Absolutely zero notability. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 21:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Qwaiiplayer.4meter4 (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liviu Bird[edit]

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

Man doing his job. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 17:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nm. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.4meter4 (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Gilli[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG FiddleheadLady (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FiddleheadLady (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I translated the article a while ago, thinking that the Tele prize and the Journalist of the Year award count as winning "significant critical attention" under WP:JOURNALIST. Furius (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes criteria 4c of WP:JOURNALIST.4meter4 (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Bright[edit]

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

I thought this would be an easy one to remove the notability tag from, but there's no in-line citations, it's written very close to the subject, possibly by someone associated with the club, and he does appear to fail WP:NFOOTY. A search of the British Newspaper Archives didn't bring up anything obvious. I do not have access to the books listed in the references, so I don't mind if this is kept, but I did want to start a discussion on it. SportingFlyer T·C 16:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail GNG and NFOOTBALL, in the absence of any direct citations. If anybody can overhaul the article then ping me. Giant Snowman 20:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have also checked newspaper archives and found nothing about this particular Basil Bright at all Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have also checked Newspapers.com and no hits there either. So doesn't look like they pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.4meter4 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12, entirety of article is copied piecemeal from the sources. -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Peak Cambodia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBUILDING and GNG; I can't find any RS which could be used to prove notability. The only sources I can find are a bunch of Khmer Times articles, which based on the tone I suspect are not neutral, and one passing mention in The Business Times -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 16:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Caroline Buchanan. Despite being relisted multiple times, those arguing to "keep" did not provide evidence of this meeting GNG. Redirecting to Caroline Buchanan seems a good compromise per WP:ATD. Any info worth merging is available from the article's history. Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Nobles[edit]

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

Might be wrong on this, but tagged since 2017 and the only coverage I found which passes WP:GNG on him was about his wedding to a prominent Australian biker, everything else was interviews in industry publications. Also currently fails WP:SPORTCRIT as written. SportingFlyer T·C 16:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions.
SSSB (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, just clicking on the news link above finds many, many interviews with and analysis of the subject. Therefore the subject passes the GNG. The argument that these are industry publications is spurious, and I strongly urge that the nominator refrain from making such arguments in the future. Plus the article gets 6 pageviews a day and the trend is upwards (10-12 a day lately). Abductive (reasoning) 02:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "News" link in this AfD brings up nothing for me, and interviews don't count towards notability (not secondary.) SportingFlyer T·C 10:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where does most news get reported? In industry publications. Nowhere in WP:N or WP:RS does it say that trade or industry publications are bad. If you persist in making such nominations, I will have to ask for some sort of intervention to get you to stop. Withdraw this nomination. Abductive (reasoning) 02:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The issue with industry mags is with identifying independence and reliability. The Pinkbike site appears to host "news stories" from anonymous bloggers (aka WP:UGC) and various event coordinators for events he was in (aka not independent), so it doesn't contribute to notability. Supercross and Red Bull also seem to be the sponsors/promo sites for some of the events he was in, so are not independent either. That leaves very few sources covering him, much less in-depth enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Abductive I just searched on Google and found enough references to justify WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources did you find? I performed a similar search and didn't find anything. SportingFlyer T·C 09:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ICANTHEARYOU Abductive (reasoning) 16:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm still not seeing independent SIGCOV here, can Abductive please link to some? JoelleJay (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent of the subject, or independent of the sports news coverage? Abductive (reasoning) 16:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I invite the closing admin to look at the plethora of sources linked in the template above. The users who are advocating deletion would invent excuses to discount any and all sources in order to win this WP:Battle. "Oh, discussing his personal life? Trivia!" "Discussing his sporting achievements? No good, the sources are sports-related!" "They interviewed him or asked him or his agent for information? Sounds like journalism!" Abductive (reasoning) 01:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where have any of those arguments been put forth? It sure sounds like you are ABF... JoelleJay (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See above: "the only coverage I found which passes WP:GNG on him was about his wedding to a prominent Australian biker, everything else was interviews in industry publications" and "interviews don't count towards notability". A user who says these sorts of things should be topic-banned from AfD. Abductive (reasoning) 02:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you're failing to demonstrate that there are no sources available to write an encyclopaedic article on him by saying I shouldn't be allowed to even file the AfD. Interviews do not usually count towards GNG because they're not secondary, that's not even controversial. Are there any sources on him that you think do pass GNG? SportingFlyer T·C 10:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive, I'm almost positive SF mentioned the wedding not because it's "trivial personal information" but because it is evidence he is only discussed by high-quality IRS in the context of his wife, and notability is wp:NOTINHERITED. That's also the reason Ritchie333 is proposing a merge. And like SF said, interviews are typically excluded from notability consideration in AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator admits that he found a source which passes GNG. Also, the non-interview sources demonstrate that he was, for example, champion of certain events, and granted automatic seeds into events. This is similar to many other athletes in more established sports, and bias against the newness of the sport is not a reason to delete. Interviews may not be the best sources for reliablity, but they do indicate interest in the person. And, as stated above, the pageviews show that there is sustained and increasing readership interest in him. Abductive (reasoning) 17:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Caroline Buchanan per WP:INVALIDBIO. I searched for sources, and the best ones all seem to be talking about her, not him. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with optional Merge per Ritchie333. As a BLP the sourcing criteria is higher and two bike related sources are not good enough per the career notability tag. The so far dictionary entry surely would be better served by merging. There is a an always constant need to create articles (looks good on the stats) over expanding and improving existing ones. If there is future interest someone can recreate an article from the merged content. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral analysis of markets[edit]

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

The article has no sources and I was unable to find any reputable sources for the model. It was likely created by the person marketing it as a sevice (User:Baminvestor, see baminvestor.com and @BAMInvestor on Twitter). Thomas Auge (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article contents are original research serving the ends of a commercial entity so would qualify for deletion per WP:TNT and I have found nothing that would qualify as a reliable source for the topic, so it fails notability. 'Behavioral Analysis of Markets' is a think tank founded by the person whose ideas are documented in this article [8], which is a proprietary approach to applying behavioural finance to investment strategies. I've glanced at the @BAMInvestor Twitter account and the topmost tweets are simply awful - no analysis, just psychological trickery to fool the gullible. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure promotional unsourced WP:OR and WP:ADMASQ. Suggest salting if re-created. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to RuPaul's Drag Race. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RuPaul's Drag Race: The Mobile Game[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/RuPaul's Drag Race: The Mobile Game

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

WP:TOOSOON. A quick Google search only brings up article from around the time of when the game was announced. No release date is confirmed and info on further developments are not available. The announcement of the game is the only third-party coverage that I can find. Underpaid Intern (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Underpaid Intern (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race if there's not enough coverage. There's no need to jump to AfD. BTW, this has been discussed at WikiProject Video games: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_156#RuPaul's_Drag_Race:_The_Mobile_Game. I should also note, I have filed a complaint against this editor for edit warring. Additionally, this editor recently sent a group of articles about RPDR contestants to AfD, all of which were kept. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is aggressively unnecessary. I'm not sure if it qualifies as harassment, but anyhow it's not relevant to the discussion. Your complaint is still pending, so don't weaponise it against me - especially since there is no outcome yet. Please, keep your personal issues against me out of this. --78.148.25.46 (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting a behavioral issue and your record of misdiagnosing eligibility criteria is not harassment. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your opinion is, I still fail to see how all of this is relevant to this AfD. Your edit summary is "lol", which says a lot. I don't want to go off-topic here, so I'm done now. 78.148.25.46 (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done interacting with this editor. Again, my vote is to just redirect if there's not enough coverage for a standalone entry at this time. The redirect serves as purpose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment I supported a block of Underpaid Intern at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Template:RuPaul's_Drag_Race for harassment due to posting the same unwanted messages multiple times. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into RuPaul's Drag Race for now, per WP:CRYSTAL. This game's announcement does seem to have been covered in quite a number of high profile magazines (e.g. entertainment weekly), but these all seem to be brief announcements that do little beside confirm that it exists. I can't find any sources providing enough in depth information that would allow us to expand the article into anything more than a simple announcement. When some more details of the game are released and/or there are some reviews it can be spun back out into a separate article. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to RuPaul's Drag Race. WP:TOOSOON. While there is some coverage of this, it's mostly not in-depth, just covering the basics of the announcement. It also seems that most if not all of the coverage is sourced to the same press release (i.e. not independent), with the same wording used across multiple articles. For instance, both the article from Out cited in the article and the one from Entertainment Weekly linked above use the exact same phrase "pep talks from Mama Ru herself". I wasn't able to find any more significant coverage. Lowercaserho (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to RuPaul's Drag Race. 4meter4 (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 4meter4 (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don Anielak[edit]

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

Delete per WP:BIO1E. Sports figure who only played one game. [User:4meter4|4meter4]] (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Addendum also fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NBASKET in that he did appear in one NBA game. He was also inducted into the Missouri State Hall of Fame in 1989. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 15:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm not sure if a college athletics hall of fame counts towards notability. One game is one event. Hence the nomination rationale.4meter4 (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number of games is not relevant, One event does not cover this for athletes. Lok at the sports SSGs Rikster2 (talk)

I would argue that WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT supersedes sports SNGs, and that sports SNGs need to be rewritten to be in balance with broader policy. The amount of coverage for a single game player is not likely to be in depth, and the individual's career entirely a flash in the pan within professional sports and entirely insignificant and without encyclopedic value. Essentially such articles are trivia and fancruft without actually being of any real value to an encyclopedia.4meter4 (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Show me another case where 1 event has been used successfully for athletes playing one game in a top professional league on the level of the NBA. One event is for people involved in crimes or other events that receive coverage for a short time and then disappear. Besides, Alienak was a highly-successful college player and long time high school coach in several states so not really one event anyway (which as an aside is why the basketball SSG has the one game guideline - pretty much no player is notable specifically for one NBA game, it is just that anyone making it to that level has had success and press in several arenas). As I said, the article needs sources - that is the legit concern with the article, not the inherent notability of the subject. Rikster2 (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a side issue which we can agree to disagree on. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NHOOPS. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he appears to meet the requirements of WP:NBASKETBALL #1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Played in the NBA per WP:NBASKETBALL. How many games is irrelevant. I will look to add some sources because that is a legit concern, but not one the article should be deleted over. Rikster2 (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I search the exact name on Newspapers.com I get almost 1000 hits over a 50 year period (1948 to 2003). That’s only a fraction of the actual contemporary newspapers of his day. Doesn’t sound like he’s a one hit wonder to me. I will have time to sift through those later. Rikster2 (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he clearly passes WP:NBASKETBALL for having appeared in at least one regular season NBA game. References could be beefed up but the subject is inherently notable. SportsGuy789 (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think WP:BIO1E applies here. The notability cut-off for basketball, in terms of the NBA at least, means that you will have been written about over and over again before you even step foot on the court. That applies to Anielak as well - he doesn't have amazing coverage, but multiple newspapers across the state of New York wrote about his very short Knicks career over a period of time, and it appears he also received some college coverage as well. Passes GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please present the specific evidence and dicuss how it's significant coverage and not simply WP:ROUTINE? Merely having name drops in news aritcles is not significant. WP:NOTNEWS applies.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's received more than name drops, those sources are already in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Alvaldi made many updates since I nominated the article which were not mentioned here, and the article itself is not on my watchlist. Based on what has been added. I'd have to agree with everyone here that the subject meets WP:SIGCOV. I'm happy to eat humble pie and withdraw the nomination. Thanks to everyone who participated. 4meter4 (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 4meter4 (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Angwe[edit]

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

Delete per WP:BIO1E. Sports figure appears to be notable for only one event. 4meter4 (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Angwe was undoubtedly notable in his home country of Nigeria in the 80s/90s. He was a full international on at least one occasion (National Football Teams is understandably missing data from this time period/region). He also died during a game in the 1995 African Cup Winners' Cup, meaning he was playing continental football for his team. I would argue that this makes him more notable than the English footballers who made one appearance in the English Third Division in the mid-20th century, of which there are numerous articles. Just because the information is not readily available does not mean he was not a notable footballer. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This source says he had been called up to the Nigeria National Team camp shortly before his death in 1995. This makes it likely that he had made more than one appearance for the national team between 1989 and 1995. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - international footballer, meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 20:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG and NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GermanKity (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Based on the sources and content that have been found, I have decided to withdraw this nomination. Thank you to all who participated here, and especially to Davidlofgren1996 for improving the article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mincivan, Barda[edit]

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

No evidence that this place actually exists. The only source is an entry for a place called Mincivan in the GEOnet Names Server, but that could be referring to Mincivan, Zangilan. I was unable to find any other sources other than Wikipedia mirrors or other sites that apparently scraped Wikipedia's info. It's not listed in https://www.stat.gov.az/menu/5/source/Inzibati_tes.pdf or anywhere else on any Azerbaijan government website that I could find.

If this page is deleted, Mincivan, Zangilan should be moved to Mincivan. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The coordinates given seem to place it in the same location as Birinci Qazaxlar. No evidence of its existence beyond that one source, so likely an error. — Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I asked the user from azwiki (Araz Yaquboglu) who is from Barda, he confirmed that there is no such village.--NMW03 (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another basically fake page created by Carlossuarrez46, who frankly should have been blocked for these mass-created fake articles and probably would have been had he not retired. I mean, I assume good faith, but a user had actually posted a note on the page saying that it couldn't be found on Azeri websites and he simply deleted the notice without doing anything to confirm that the place existed. There's probably thousands more just like this even with the bulk-deletions of the Iranian Abadi and Azeri/Armenian geostubs. FOARP (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan Ireland: The Vegan Society of Ireland[edit]

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

No evidence of notability other than the one press release that The Irish Times published. The official website link goes to marketing firm jacoi ("we help you work and do business in the vegan market."). Guy Macon (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The subject organisation (which as far as I can tell is not validly registered as either a company or a charity in Ireland) has been the subject of little to no independent coverage. A search, for example in the Irish Times, for Vegan Ireland or Vegan Society returns barely a handful of passing mentions. While a WP:BEFORE search allowed me to find/add a few refs to the article, these only barely support the basic facts (dates/existence/etc). Otherwise I could find nothing to support a claim to notability. Mine is a "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minzija Biktimer[edit]

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

Was draftified with the hope that the article creator would improve on the sources, but was moved back without improvement. Searches, done in the English version of her name, as well as using Минзиә Биктимер, turned up zero in-depth sourcing. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it looks like notability would rest on the weight we give to her being awarded the honorary title of Honored Artist of the Bashkir Republic. On it’s own I’m not sure that would be sufficient, but I’m not seeing any other claim of notability (even unsourced). I can see why she would be important enough for an article on Bashkir wiki, but that doesn’t seem to translate well into en.wiki notability. Mccapra (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete This is an award from a major Russian republic. However, article does need better sources. Rogermx (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I personally feel like a state/republic award points toward notability (per WP:ANYBIO 1). There's the one source about her life/death included in the article already, which is substantial, but I haven't been able to find much else. Seeing as the award was granted in 1989, and she was active as a dancer in the 1980s, I'm not surprised it's hard to find sources online; I would suspect there was (at the time) current coverage of an artist getting such an award that would be hard to find on the internet now. - Whisperjanes (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Whisperjanes, I thought that as well, before nominating. However, WP:MUSTBESOURCES should apply. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Bashkir article outlines her life and career which indicates that she never danced for the Bolshoi, the Kirov or other major troupes, apparently didn’t tour internationally or do anything else that would clearly make her notable. She danced in the Bashkir ASSR and then went into arts management so her career seems pretty ROTM. Again I can see why Bashkir Wikipedia has an article about her but I’m not seeing anything except that award that would make her notable in en.wiki terms. The Bashkir ASSR was not a Union Republic of the USSR so its awards weren’t like the Lenin Prize or People’s Artist of the Azerbaijan SSR. They were more like “honoured Artist of Aberdeenshire” or “Honoured Artist of Long Island”. Mccapra (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As a BLP related (recently passed) the sourcing criteria on this encyclopedia is higher than one source and so is the notability criteria. A dictionary entry of less than a pseudo biography is not acceptable. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Varty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find any in-depth sourcing on this Canadian lawyer and author. The two books in the "writings" list appear to have been self-published by "Varty & Co. Printers", and I saw no reviews in a search. He is frequently quoted as the lawyer for people in the news, for example the captain of the now sunken Queen of the North ferry, but notability is of course not inherited. --- Possibly (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's technically possible to verify that they exist — but this neither cites enough sourcing to get him over WP:GNG, mor claims anything "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over GNG on his sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: not eligible for softdeletion due to prior afd
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NAUTHOR and GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Valley Chess Club[edit]

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

Non-notable Chess club, the article is unsourced and a search only brought up primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NORG. No indication of notability. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I can find zero coverage in reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of adequate sourcing available. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 21:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. B. Andrews[edit]

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

Non-notable player and coach. Lacks enough coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NGRIDIRON, see here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears that he was the head basketball coach at UTEP from '36 to '37. See this template. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he appears to meet WP:NGRIDIRON #1, per BeanieFan11. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a major college head coach in men's basketball he meets GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rikster2 The Texas College of Mines was a very minor college at that time, and it was not a notable athletic program at that point in history.4meter4 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets NGRIDIRON per above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Nigam (Actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was earlier created with the first letter of the last name in lowercase (Abhishek nigam) to get around the creation protection at Abhishek Nigam. The article was draftified and later declined at AfC due to notability concerns and the fact that it was recreated again consensus. The author still ignored the review and the page moved to mainspace by probably a sock account. The subject currently doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. I think he needs one or two more significant roles after which we can create a separate article. If this page is deleted or draftified as a result of this discussion it should also be protected to avoid recreation. It has been previously AfD'ed, WP:G4'ed twice, draftified and declined at AfC several times per the page history.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt at least the last two attempts created by the vandal, that is, Abhishek Nigam (Actor) and Abhishek Nigam ( actor ), possibly also Abhishek Nigam (actor), Abhishek Nigam ( Actor ), Abhishek nigam (Actor), Abhishek nigam (actor), Abhishek nigam ( Actor ), Abhishek nigam ( actor ) and all possible future variations of the article name you can think of. This article has already been deleted via the previous deletion discussion. The draft submissions are repeatedly declined due to lack of notability. The socks still keep moving the draft into mainspace, using various tricks mentioned above. Two article titles were already salted. Enough is enough. The socks should also be blocked from editing.—J. M. (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National APIDA Panhellenic Association[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. jp×g 06:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. jp×g 06:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities continues the work of Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities as the foremost compendium on the subject. This resource currently highlights this article's subject. Its existence as an umbrella organizations for Cultural interest fraternities and sororities that serve Asian American students and alumni. Its organizational peers include the National Panhellenic Conference, North American Interfraternity Conference, National Pan-Hellenic Council, National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations, and National Multicultural Greek Council; the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, the premier professional association for professionals working with college fraternities and sororities, recognizes it as such. --Littledrummrboy (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Adding to coverage/notability: Additional hits can be found under the Association's previous name, National APIA Panhellenic Association. --Littledrummrboy (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly you will have to find significant coverage of the National APIDA Panhellenic Association and its activities before it even begins to meet Wikipedia's notability standards for organizations. All the article seems to say is, "We worked hard to put this together." There is no claim of notability. --Bejnar (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To your point, Bejnar, I have just added several references to journals and the independent Fraternity and Sorority Archive at the University of Illinois, where the NAPA group (~APIDA) is profiled in a section of its own. While earnest and valid, and offered in good faith, I agree that the article had been thinly sourced. I believe my edits to this page should suffice to prove notability. This trade organization is on similar footing to a half dozen other active, valid groupings of national organizations. Jax MN (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This is another example of a useful article by a new or unfamiliar Wikipedian that is being attacked with an unnecessary AfD PROD. The reasonable course of action ought to have been to improve the article. I have now done this, and others ought to continue to do so. The article now meets any reasonable notability review. Jax MN (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the big picture, I don't like this tactic of littering WP with AfD PRODs as a way to spark emergency page cleanup; a disinterested observer might view this as harassment. Other writers have long claimed that such AfD PRODs are lazy (versus making the effort to improve articles). Analyzing how this could have been a good faith edit instead of bad faith, it appears this is the method Onel5969 chose to spur edits. I wrote an article on Wooster's Greeks that had well over 100 citations, I thought they were joking, but after I showed clear notability with these many citations, Onel5969 added a "needs further citations" template at the top of that well-referenced page! Still, they seem to be a veteran editor whose skills might be used more effectively. Rather than this ongoing campaign to delete fraternity and sorority articles, (as if we only had room for a few of the largest), my advice to Onel5969 is to fix these articles, offer creative and helpful suggestions for the many newbies that are turned off by aggressive deletion tactics, and to grow the WP team. We have plenty of space; deletion shouldn't be the first impulse. Jax MN (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my comments above; it was pointed out to me I had neglected to vote. --Littledrummrboy (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Refs have been brought to standard.Naraht (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - none of the sources are in-depth from independent sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Jax MN, one of the criteria for article inclusion on Wikipedia is most definitely not that we have enough room. The guideline may be as clear as a muddy lake but that is what we have to work with. Space on Wikipedia is not a factor in anything I have seen and not a very strong argument for subject inclusion. Sources do not necessarily need to be added to an article to assert notability but are recommended. We can agree that AfD is not for article cleanup but is often misused just for that. However, I want to point out that there is a clear distinction between presumed notability and, what I call, confirmed notability, though the term is never actually used. Almost every SNG and even the GNG explains that presumed notability does not guarantee an article will be kept or should be included as a stand-alone article but, with certain criteria being met, one could presume a subject is notable and create an article based on that presumption. The only process by which an article can be confirmed to be notable is through the AfD process because the AfD process is a rebuttal of presumed notability and subsequent discussion to reach consensus on said presumed notability to confirm it. If this process were a court of law then one could argue that a decision in one case would dictate those that follow but the AfD process specifically notes that a decision over one AfD does not count as a precedence in other cases. Each AfD should be in a bubble all its own. So the question goes back to whether this subject has received significant coverage in what the encyclopedia determines is multiple reliable independent and secondary verifiable sources regardless of whether those are referenced in the article or not. I do not know enough about this subject to suggest a course of action. I will say that there were no red flags when I looked at the sources provided. Sorry for the long explanation and I won't take up any more of anyone's time. --ARose Wolf 14:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the above comment of ARoseWolf seems a confirmed notability. Passes WP:NORG. GermanKity (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an established organization with an active site in addition to the comments above. I see no reason to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhani96 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The sources added to the article now meet the requirements of WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an established organization and is a collective group of leaders within the Asian Pacific Islander Desi American community who work together to advocate, collaborate, and educate their members and constituency for the greater good. This page should be kept to give a voice to this community and provide history/resources to AAGLO's. Rayadragon (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mayank Kataria[edit]

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

I had proposed this article for deletion with the reasoning "I can't find evidence of notability in reliable, independent sources, and I can't find any evidence that e.g. the claim of "working with Tomorrowland" or with Jake Paul is based on reality. "

The Prod was removed with the rather outlandish statement "Removed deletion proposal, facts stated here are true and can be verified through the website and LinkedIn of the subject in question. Certain other facts stated here are under a confidentiality agreement, the details of which may not be released to the public but headlines are allowable."

So basically the article creator confirmed that the statements in the article are unverifiable, which makes this for our purposes an unacceptable article (if you remove all unverifiable stuff, you have the biography of a non-notable person). Fram (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Another vanity article with no encyclopedic value. Just promotional, most likely self created. RationalPuff (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - unverifiable vanity spam Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing opinion to speedy delete as per everyone else Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete There is nothing to Keep this article on Wikipedia. GermanKity (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did specifically say that the 'details' (including payout etc.) are not allowed to be released, but the facts of its existence are public info. Please try to understand what I mean and if not i will be more than happy to elaborate further.

Not sure what this is. Crossing it out. Perhaps it was accidental. Lesliechin1 (talk)

Speedy Delete No news coverage has been provided. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fails WP:NBIO; borderline WP:A7. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Search shows zero coverage about the subject in reliable sources. The only reference cited in the article is his own website. Should be speedily deleted under WP:A7.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kanmazha Peyyum Munpe[edit]

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

Non-notable film, not covered by any reliable source in any significant capacity, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 10:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable. Nothing on WP:BEFORE. Kolma8 (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Showing Up (film)[edit]

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

Film does not meet standards for main space article as described in WP:NFF, all sources provided merely indicate casting/production team announcements and none indicate that the film has entered main production, should be drafted until such coverage is received BOVINEBOY2008 09:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been moved to Draft space twice but keeps being moved back to main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and salt, preventing recreation without admin involvement. Would have agreed with the draftify suggestion, if not for the history. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Non-notable. Kolma8 (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Production has commenced in Portland, will add article to prove it. Cinemacriterion (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being in production doesn't make it notable per WP:NFILM, unless there was something significant about the production itself, which there does not appear to be. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, I think the level of top talent involved in the production in front of and behind the camera justifies it as notable. It's not a home movie. TheMovieGuy

"Top talent" involved is irrelevant, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. No one is saying that this film won't eventually meet notability requirements of WP:NFF or WP:NFILM, but as of right now they don't. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:CRYSTALBALL (or just move it to a sandbox/delete the main article idk). Anonymous 7481 (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to delete per Otr500. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film is in production and is well sourced, well written. It meets notability and should be stay in the mainspace. TheMovieGuy

You really need to read the requirements for an unreleased future film at WP:NFF. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify per WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NFF.4meter4 (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Draftify would be an option but per Liz above we are rehashing (moved twice) a promotional or advertising want to have the article published before it passes the criteria. Considering this, and the fact that those interested or involved will surely get started on another one as soon as possible, deletion is the proper choice. I don't think salt is an alternative, no matter how aggitated we get, because future notability is possible. I didn't look at who was involved in the moving, if it is just a sincere desire to create the article or something else, but that might be considered. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Materialscientist (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Cecilio[edit]

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

Reality show contestant, does not appear to have SIGCOV. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all sources I could find that specifically mention the name of the subject seem to be user-generated contents, blogs, or fancruft. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 09:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete User doing blatant promotion on Wikipedia. Creating articles that are not eligible or pass WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin Also blocked the creator. The user is continuously trying to publish non notable subject's articles after receiving so many warnings.GermanKity (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turone's goal[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY, certainly not for a stand-alone article. Perhaps if there was a match article or another redirect title, but I couldn't find any. Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to 1980–81 Serie A, or another better target. Certainly not notable enough for an individual article about it, but worth a few lines in an article somewhere. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching Italian sources for "il Gol di Turone" shows that it's clearly notable, even 40 years later. Eligible for a stand-alone article. [9] [10] [11] [12] all qualify for WP:GNG and were all within the first ten results. Needs improvement, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 09:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer. Whilst not The hand of God, it is still significantly covered.--Mvqr (talk) 10:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SF. Giant Snowman 20:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely meets notability criteria. Just needs sourcing. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly, the fact that something become a media event does not necessarily make it encyclopaedic according to Wikipedia's instructions and in this case it is an obvious unfair highlight since the disallowed goal did not decide the 1980-81 Serie A (in the two points for a win era): the match ended in a draw and Roma on the last matchday lost the title after drawing with Avellino. If Roma had beaten Juventus at Turin (until the match Juve was 1st with one point over Roma and after Roma would be with one point over Juve) and the results had been the same until the end of the championship, the title would have been decided in a play-off match, but that is unverifiable speculation that Wikipedia does not permit add in the articles. On the other hand, the case of the unrelated Maradona's goal of the century, cited in this discussion, is analogic and articles in Wikipedia are not created in that way, but by fulfilling a number of criteria established by consensus of WP:FOOTY. In the article on Maurizio Turone, who scored that goal, it is already explained because it is linked to his career (along with certain controversies about the 1983-84 European Cup final) and, at most, it could be cited in the article on the Juventus-Roma rivalry if someone creates it being related with the rebirth of that opposition in 1980s, but this article itself should be deleted.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an event which passed GNG and more importantly continues to have significant coverage - it's not UNDUE to have an article on it. SportingFlyer T·C 09:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media impact is one thing, impact based in facts and consequences are another. The 1980-81 Serie A was not decided by that episode, which, by the way, was never clarified. Moreover, the issue here is if Turone's goal deserves its own article, not whether any mention of it should be deleted.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the fame of this gol is so longstanding and still vivid as to have named two recent books, Mai più il gol di Turone and Il gol di Turone era bono. Still this year it has received a lot of coverage (including on TV) because of its 40 years anniversary, examples [13], [14], [15]. Whatever it was decisive for the 1980/81 Scudetto or not it is a minor point, as well as if it was valid or not, as his reputation has transcended that season and it is still described as "the mother of all the refereeing controversies" ([16]) and it is still discussed (or used as a symbol) as such. 151.53.84.35 (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive International[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. A large amount of the sources on the page (or in the COI edit request on the talk that I declined) are self-published, while the non-self published sources are either non-reliable sources, opinion pieces, or only give a fleeting mention. It therefore appears to not have WP:SIGCOV from multiple reliable sources independent of the subject itself and thereby fails WP:NCORP. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have found one reliable independent in-depth source (a profile) about the organization, but more are needed to satisfy WP:GNG. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Some other sources are The Wire, BuzzFeed News, and Morning Star, but they mostly just announce that the organization has been established. It has gotten some attention because of its prominent backers including Bernie Sanders, Noam Chomsky, and Yanis Varoufakis, and most other articles discuss Progressive International in relation to these people. So, I feel that for now it could be better discussed in their articles. Since De Correspondent seems to be the only source that goes in depth about the organization itself and since it is unclear whether this organization will become important or will just disappear (it hasn't achieved anything yet), it's a delete for now. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A global political organisation, far more appropriate to apply WP:NONPROFIT. Simple searching turns up multiple independent RS.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]

References

^ "'Ecuador's Democracy Is on the Brink': Progressive International Team to Monitor Election". The Wire. 27 January 2021.
^ "To Preserve 'the Human Experiment', a Global Coalition of Progressive Forces Takes Shape". The Wire. 3 October 2020.
^ "Yanis Varoufakis calls for Black Friday boycott of Amazon". the Guardian. 2020-11-26.
^ "Progressive International urges Centre to 'stop persecution of democratic dissenters'". The New Indian Express. 24 September 2020.
^ "BJP causing 'irreparable damage' to Indian democracy by arbitrary arrests: Progressive International". Scroll.in. 25 September 2020.
^ Osborne, Carilee (2019-04-10). "Progressive International : challenging the rise of right-wing nationalism". New Agenda: South African Journal of Social and Economic Policy. 2019 (72): 40–43. doi:10.10520/EJC-14fd518ca3.
^ "From Iceland — Katrín Jakobsdóttir Joins Progressive International, Warns of Right-Wing Surge". The Reykjavik Grapevine. 2020-05-14.
^ Abrahamian, Atossa Araxia (2018-12-13). "Yanis Varoufakis's Internationalist Odyssey". The Nation.

AfD is not clean up. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Goldsztajn. There are a number of independent sources covering the subject in detail.--User:Namiba 14:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has coverage in numerous reliable sources, including negative analysis of the group [17] which indicates that political analysts of various persuasions deem it worthy of analysis and coverage. SFB 18:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources found by Goldsztajn demonstrate notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A7 non notable. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cogs Hollow[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTV Elizium23 (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two Forks, Idaho[edit]

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

This is a "what were they smoking at GNIS" case, as the spot was and is the south end of a not that big of an island in the Teton River which it divides into two streams for a pretty short distance. There is nothing around it, and there isn't the slightest hint it was ever a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - GNIS actually includes a description this time, which states Two Forks is an area where the Teton River splits into two sections and then merges again into one stream. The whole area is marked on topos as an uninhabited swamp, and the only pre-GNIS USGS topo this seems to appear on is the 1979 Bates 1:24000, which has this in the italics font used for non-community features. Searching brings up nothing suggesting this is a notable location, and Idaho Geographic Names calls this a "locale". Clearly false, yet another GNIS error. Hog Farm _Talk 00:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Anthony Irby (died 1625). Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Irby (1577–1610)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. The article first claims he was a politician, then acknowledges the Member of Parliament was probably his father. There are no other claims to notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is no model of clarity, but the knighthood meets WP:ANYBIO #1. (There's clear precedent to that effect.) Furthermore, all the sources that I can find seem to accept uncritically that he sat in Parliament: the article's skepticism may be an editorial embellishment. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simple knighthood is not sufficient. Your link, such as it is, supports CBEs, hardly the same thing. If there are sources for his "MPship", then that would be enough to save him. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Knighthood most certainly does meet WP:ANYBIO #1. My list cited above (which, despite attempts to rubbish it by bitter deletionists who don't want to acknowledge the consensus, is a full list of relevant discussions and not in any way cherry-picked) is not just about CBEs - please actually read it before commenting. But given knighthood is above a CBE, if a CBE is notable then a knighthood clearly counts as "a well-known and significant award or honor". I'm astonished that anyone would think otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A knighthood is above a CBE?^{[citation needed]} AFAIK, knights, especially from that time period, are a dime a dozen. I have yet to see an Afd where being a knight was a winning argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try, e.g., this one; there are numerous others in the list (marked with "Kt"). (Knights are higher than CBEs, as this article explains.) But regardless, I really find it difficult to maintain that a knighthood is neither "well-known" or "significant". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the most recent one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Thomas (businessperson). Clearly his knighthood was the clinching factor. I have yet to see an Afd where being a knight was a winning argument. You probably need to look at a few relevant ones! Yet another here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Francis Moncrieff Kerr-Jarrett. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, those examples are about knighthoods now. Does ANYBIO #1 apply to knighthoods back then, when they were (mostly?) hereditary? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knighthoods were never hereditary. It was indeed common in the Middle Ages, when knighthood generally went with military service, for many (or most) male members of a military family to be knighted, but it was not actually hereditary. And by the 16th century it was no longer the case that knighthood went with military service in any case. Knighthood by then, as it still is now, was for distinguished service and was not just awarded to a young man who had fought for the king. Note that, although he was apparently knighted at the age of 26, this man's father was not knighted! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A knighthood is above a CBE?^{[citation needed]} I'm afraid you really are showing your ignorance here! Yes, any knighthood is most certainly above a CBE in the order of precedence! Maybe understand the subject before making yourself look a bit silly in a debate? Just a bit of friendly advice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Knighthood meets WP:ANYBIO #1.4meter4 (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree that "Knighthood meets WP:ANYBIO #1". Those making this argument don't explain why knighthood is a "well-known and significant award or honor*. My understanding is that British knighthoods are basically given out like candy to rich donors or the period equivalent. Being rich or influential enough to get a knighthood doesn't establish notability. Proper sourcing does. Sandstein 07:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Your understanding is, I'm afraid, utterly and completely wrong. As I said above, I would always suggest knowledge of a subject is useful before commenting on it. You don't think knighthood is a "well-known and significant award or honor"? Something that forever gives the recipient a title for the rest of their life? What exactly do you think does meet that criterion then? Or maybe you just don't agree with ANYBIO #1, which is a different issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: While arguing the significance of the title we are sort of side-stepping the genealogical aspect as three of the six sources use the word. I would have to agree that the likely The Most Noble Order of the Garter (possibly but not sure) is one of the highest but is that one thing (being an investor is not a criterion) enough or even really being rich enough to have a lavish grave? The "Tomb of Sir Anthony Irby" might artistically be more notable. Maybe there should be a list of barely notable knights. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the page on his father - I cannot confirm he served as an MP and this is probably confusion with his father, who was, and who has a lot written on him. I just think we're a little short of having enough for an encyclopaedia article, especially given the confusion as to which Anthony Irby's being discussed in the sources. SportingFlyer T·C 15:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per SportingFlyer. Given the confusion about who did what, this is an excellent solution. --Randykitty (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I must say that I do find it very odd that he seems a lot less notable than his father and yet he was knighted at the age of 26 and his father never was. I wonder if he performed some service for the king that is not recorded in any sources anyone has yet found. I also can't help wondering whether he really ever was knighted and a mistake was made on his tomb. Maybe it was actually his father who was knighted and the two were confused. Mind you, his own son seems to have been knighted at the age of 19! Very odd. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of hotels in Nigeria. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee Chalets[edit]

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

Non notable hotel that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus WP:NBUILD isn’t met. Furthermore the sources used in the article as well as a before search are all mere announcements. Celestina007 (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree fails WP:GNG; WP:NBUILD Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, or simply "Keep". This could/should be covered in List of hotels in Nigeria. There are sources in the article, and it seems somewhat significant, so it certainly could be a table row / list-item there. To redirect to a specific row in a table use the id= option, as in 'id="Jubilee Chalets"', on the table row, to set an anchor, so that List of hotels in Nigeria#Jubilee Chalets would redirect to that row. --Doncram (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with this because the article contains substantial sources so I see no reason why it should be deleted. Please help check it and work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.Korlah (talk • contribs) 15:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I !voted "merge or simply keep" above. I set up the table row, so List of hotels in Nigeria#Jubilee Chalets is a target that can be linked; material on the AFD subject page could be merged to there. And I added a tiny bit to the hotels in Nigeria list-article, which is not the most interesting list-article in Wikipedia, but maybe it's early in Wikipedia's development about anything in that nation. --Doncram (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Doncram.4meter4 (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saraf Ali Bhat[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP1E and possibly WP:NBIO.

Per BLP1E (1): Sources only cover the subject when mentioning the award. BLP1E (2): The subject is a student, and "otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual."

I also have concerns regarding the notability of the award itself, which I could not find any information for online, except in the context of the subject winning it. If the award itself is not significant, then the subject would fail WP:NBIO as well. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 03:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 03:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A few cookie-cutter human-interest stories about a young author are not sufficient to meet GNG. The Global Reader’s Choice Award does not appear to be significant award, so NBIO is not met. I could not find any reviews of his works online besides this guest-authored post from the Kashmir Reader. He may become notable in the future but right now it is too soon for an article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG uncontroversially. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails every flavour of notability, bar none. And regarding the award, I think it's quite telling that when you try to google that, you mainly get this chap coming up. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article not meets Wikipedia:Notability and only available for Promotion of Orginization or People & Company. Serious Black^@Contribute 14:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Nexus000 (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bates, Idaho[edit]

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

The Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine, as a reference, shows that the church which appears on the older topos was actually a Mormon branch, which is to say a type of individual congregation. That, and the Bates School, are the only buildings seen here, and the spot itself isn't named "Bates" on the maps until relatively late in the game. One gathers that the LDS Church may have hoped that this would grow into a town, but at any rate it doesn't appear to have happened. The branch building was turned into a house, and the school vanished, to be replaced by a rather grand house, but I can't find evidence for anything else except one person "from" here and the post office, housed I cannot tell where. Mangoe (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 02:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW there is little need to keep this open and initial consensus is that there is notability. If there is disagreement with my early SNOW close, I am happy to revert it if participants feel further discussion is necessary. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 11[edit]

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

Is this name official?? Right now only the code name of Windows Sun Valley is known. Georgia guy (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This image was teased by Microsoft. The shadows show the number '11'. Zai talk 01:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this image shows a leak of the OS, which says Windows 11 on it. Zai talk 01:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing is that this article says that the name "Windows 11" was leaked, too. Zai talk 12:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Might be a tad early but I'm seeing some RS cover it. RS have also been calling it "Windows 11" to clarify.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've checked out the ISO leak for it and it shows how it's Windows 11 multiple times, and as referenced above microsoft themselves basically confirmed it as well, here's a screenshot of how winver and settings shows windows 11 and not 10 or anything else. TurboSonic (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per -Zai-. It seems to say it's called "Windows 11" in every source I've looked (and the leak seems pretty conclusive.) Leave the article as it is right now, it can be moved if Microsoft annoounces it under a different name at the upcoming conference. --DL6443 (^Talk/_Contribs) 02:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I hate to say it, but procedurally the nom didn't even advanced an argument for deletion, just asking about the name. And a quick Google News search suggests this is notable (and the name is already popular), and common senses further suggest it will be even more so in the near future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the problem is the article's title, so one request for move (WP:REQMOVE) should be opened. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable, it has also leaked in full. Pikavoom (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the issue is the name, I think it should still be kept as even the leaked build has "Windows 11" in its winver. --Konnor88 (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep I'm no fan of the company or its software but is this clearly a notable thing on a world scale? It is. There's significant and growing media coverage about it, too. Oh, and the point about the nomination not citing any reason for deletion is, well, valid! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm 99% sure they will use the name Windows 11. They've teased it twice, with the event starting at 11 AM and the 11-minute-long startup sound remix they posted. And that's without considering the recent ISO leak. Besides that, it's not even difficult to move the article to a different title if it ends up being called something else. Cindercat 🐱 (Want to talk?) 11:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty sure The Verge even brought up the thing about Windows 11 over here, so should be right, I think. The Verge is a reliable source, if I got this right. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 11:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per all keeps above Coldbolt (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There will be plenty more information next week when MS will do their presentation. We can take the time to wait for that. And it's not just the codename Sun Valley that's known but Windows 11 too. --Maxl (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Microsoft hasn't confirmed anything, only that this is gonna be a new windows update, other windows updates have no seperate articles. About this being a seperate operating system, the leaked build internally identifies itself as major version 10, minor version 0, just as Windows 10 does, the product string within the build is "Windows 10". Because anyone can change the install iso to display "Windows 11" and change the registry with the new caption, there's no proof that this is legit. Another thing to mention is that the next windows 10 update will be build 22xxx, while the leaked build is 21996. Ugnyteaa (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's this here, then? Scotch mist? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's just wait for the June 24 event and see what Microsoft says. Zai talk 14:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be very surprised if an individual could change the OOBE and start menu while keeping it the same kind of style Windows 10 was using all while remaining smooth to use and (mostly) bug free, so I doubt somebody would be able to create this unless they just somehow took the build from Microsoft and renamed some of it to Windows 11. The build is also an older dev build from late may so that might be while it's build number is 21996 and not 22xxx. Don't forget that many reliable sources are calling it Windows 11 with even Microsoft themselves acknowledging the leak TurboSonic (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These traits appear to have been also exhibited by other betas of Windows. Subscribe to me (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even though this is kind of crystal, however as of today, the ISO has already leaked onto the web and some notable news media focusing on tech has already reported on it, one of which is PCWorld. In addition as per the winver program, it shows as Windows 11 ... so ya. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Drill it (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is no longer a WP:CRYSTAL issue, there are plenty sources out there to warrant the page being kept out of WP:COMMONNAME.Admanny (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Already enough information to justify an own article.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lollolman (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2021 (GMT)

Keep. "Name not confirmed" Well, as I am writing this (From Windows 11!), the build's official branding says "Windows 11". Keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:5EBC:D500:E43A:E8F0:304B:BC2F (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The leaked build and many screenshots clearly state that this OS is named "Windows 11", and if its name were to be changed to something else, then this page can always be renamed, so really, there's no need for deletion. Jurtaa (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it's deleted and Windows confirms the name, it will be a pain to recreate the page. Since the hints from Microsoft and the build itself confirm the name. It's best to keep it. Angelgreat (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems pretty much legit and at this point building the article works better than deletion (and we can always move it if it becomes 'Windows 22' or something). At this point if it's a hoax it would be a pretty big one which would earn its own article, and I doubt this is the "Windows 12" Linux distro guy trying to fool the world. Nate • (chatter) 19:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm typing this comment using Windows 11 build 21996.1 which is released recently. It seems clear that this name (Windows 11) is going to be the final one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4062:4e9b:eb4d:7448:99e7:8efa:93c0 (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above --Vacant0 (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Caldera, Camille (8 January 2021). "Fact check: Claims of electoral fraud in Rome, dubbed 'ItalyGate,' are baseless". USA TODAY.

[2] "'Italygate' election conspiracy theory was pushed by two firms led by woman who also falsely claimed $30 million mansion was hers". Washington Post. 19 June 2021.

[3] "The craziest conspiracy theory out of Trump's White House - CNN Video". 17 June 2021.

[4] "Analysis - 'Pure insanity': Here's perhaps the craziest election fraud conspiracy the Trump team pushed". Washington Post. 15 June 2021.

[5] "Usa, Nyt: «Trump voleva che Fbi indagasse su teoria complottista Italygate»". Il Sole 24 ORE (in Italian). 6 June 2021.

[6] Sarcina, Giuseppe (5 June 2021). "Italygate, la teoria (falsa) dei voti truccati via satellite da Obama e Renzi per far vincere Biden". Corriere della Sera (in Italian).

[7] "'Ecuador's Democracy Is on the Brink': Progressive International Team to Monitor Election". The Wire. 27 January 2021.

[8] "To Preserve 'the Human Experiment', a Global Coalition of Progressive Forces Takes Shape". The Wire. 3 October 2020.

[9] "Yanis Varoufakis calls for Black Friday boycott of Amazon". the Guardian. 2020-11-26.

[10] "Progressive International urges Centre to 'stop persecution of democratic dissenters'". The New Indian Express. 24 September 2020.

[11] "BJP causing 'irreparable damage' to Indian democracy by arbitrary arrests: Progressive International". Scroll.in. 25 September 2020.

[12] Osborne, Carilee (2019-04-10). "Progressive International : challenging the rise of right-wing nationalism". New Agenda: South African Journal of Social and Economic Policy. 2019 (72): 40–43. doi:10.10520/EJC-14fd518ca3.

[13] "From Iceland — Katrín Jakobsdóttir Joins Progressive International, Warns of Right-Wing Surge". The Reykjavik Grapevine. 2020-05-14.

[14] Abrahamian, Atossa Araxia (2018-12-13). "Yanis Varoufakis's Internationalist Odyssey". The Nation.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]