Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 27	June 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meneses Monroy[edit]

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

Initially tagged for rapid cross-wiki self-promotion and having no external third-party coverage on any reputable media (just a couple of blogs), but French Wikipedia editors have now found and verified the abuse of dozens and dozens of suckpuppet accounts that have re-created articles on this non-notable person and his pet projects (and even biographies of his mom and items for his blog entries, and for the anniversaries of his organization, and a category called “The Universal Man” to group his items, let’s talk about self-aggrandizement — see Wikidata). fr:Wikipédia:Vérificateur_d'adresses_IP/Requêtes/juin_2021#Teaselower,_Alignparis,_Remithairy_et_un_paquet_d'autres_-_8_juin To me, it’s blatant abuse of Wikimedia projects for the purposes of self-promotion. Born2bgratis (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete just spam, delete it — billinghurst sDrewth 12:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per WP:SPAM. Slovenichibo (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iris AO, Inc.[edit]

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

Too commercial style ("radical advantages", etc). Don't meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Possible COI. Asketbouncer (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 21 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, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avery Biomedical Devices[edit]

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

Don't meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Possible WP:ADPROMO or COI Asketbouncer (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 21 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, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Wilcox & Sons, Inc.[edit]

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

It's written without any sources, that is an apparent WP:ADPROMO or COI. Asketbouncer (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The article has no references and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria although I can see announcements and generic business listings. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Vincent[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. The Guardian article is the best of a sorry bunch of references, and that is just about the marketing gimmick he apparently invented. All it says about him otherwise is that he is a marketing person. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, no reliable coverage outside of apparently inventing some marketing method. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BLP1E as stated above and result on sources are thin. Slovenichibo (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Garwood, Idaho[edit]

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

I have no idea where these ranch houses were supposed to have been, given that this is actually another rail location sandwiched between two roads from early on. The topos don't show any trackage detail, but presently it's the south end of a long passing siding surrounded by industry; older aerials show a mostly forested area to the east. Other than that I cannot find any info about the spot. Mangoe (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This community has an elementary school and details of its population have been recorded in serious reference works (such as Cram's Atlas). There are a number of news articles (such as this one) that can be used to flesh out this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The school is well over a mile west of the old Garwood location, and it was only built in 1991; the surrounding area is generic Coeur d'Alene outer suburb, and was all farmland in a 1954 aerial view, so there is no connection other than reuse of the name. The population reference is better but I'd prefer to be able to check it against the official census. The short bit in Lumber World Review does nothing more than confirm Garwood as a rail spot, but it says nothing about what it was. I don't see how these are enough to confirm a settlement here, much less give it a history. Mangoe (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many schools which are more than a mile outside of the center of the communities which they serve. The population reference lists populations for "cities and towns": in other words, settlements. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Firsfron. The article is a stub but has information about population and school, all referenced. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 13:45, 29 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 appears that the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Eberhart[edit]

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

This professors might be close to being noteworthy via WP:PROF on C#1, however I do think this is below the threshold based on some other AfD's I have come across. Below are the details for why I believe this is a valid AfD:

Arguments for Deletion[edit]

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

No. Scopus provide an h-score of 23, about 100 papers, and about 1670 citations. His most cited paper was cited 55 times. Other academic metrics shows similar scores. While this isn't terrible, it is not noteworthy by wikistandards either. Particularly that the most cited paper only received 51. The next highest ones are in the 30's. Considering he's been in research for decades, this doesn't cut the mustard to be notable under criteria 1.

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

No. Does not seem to be the case, his CV (which seem date limited to 2017) lists his awards and none of them are prestigious enough to meet this criteria. The Jefferson Science Fellowship is with a prestigious institution, but it does not seem to be a stand out award that would mee tthis criteria.

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

No. He appears to be a member of multiple groups, but none indicated that he was elected and is only a member. None state fellow status sans the Jefferson Science Fellowship, which doesn't meet criteria 3 either.

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

No. I don't see evidence of this. His citations, papers, and notority seem limited and in no way stand out or above the rest.

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

No. Does not appear to have sat in any named or distinguished appointments, or any chair positions.

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

No. Does not seem to have held any administrative posts.

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

No. I could not find any evidence of this, nor any indication that this might be a possibility. No media coverage either.

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

No. Does not seem to have participated in jourunal activities besides publishing.

Other Comments[edit]

The page is already pretty slim and unformatted, and in itself doesn't suggest noteworthyness. I was unable to find much of anything that could be added to bolster the page (it would just have to be better formatted with an infobox and stuff. His wiki cited he has published, but one is an autobiography and the other seems to be for the wrong person. With the exception of criteria 1 where it might be possible to argue it as met (though I do not think it is), he doesn't meet WP:PROF nor WP:GNG.

As an additional side note, some of you may notice that I have been proposing several AfD's for chemists and scientists for the past several days. The reason why is I have been going through WP:WikiProject Chemistry's open tasks and reviewing the chemists listed there and checking for ones that may have ground for either AfD or PROD. Through looking most are valid (though many have issues), but a few of these articles have been sitting relatively untouched for the better part of a decade and have long been in need of attention. I don't want it to seem like I have an agenda or like I am picking on something. I am generally trying to err on side of leniency as well as be as thorough as I can in my proposals.

Thanks! --Tautomers_{(T C)} 22:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very promotional article in itself. It makes no claim of notability at all, and it doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG either. Sungodtemple (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability whatsoever presented in the article itself, and Tautomers has made a compelling case that such evidence is lacking even outside of this article. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I looked at the Scopus metrics for his 60 coauthors with 18+ papers:

Total citations: avg: 5189, median: 3713, Eberhart: 1668.

Total papers: avg: 150, med: 126, E: 99.

h-index: avg: 31, med: 31, E: 23.

Top citations: 1st: avg: 640, med: 394, E: 131. 2nd: avg: 312, med: 237, E: 84. 3rd: avg: 229, med: 161, E: 74. 4th: avg: 191, med: 142, E: 64. 5th: avg: 164, med: 123, E: 54.

Top first-author: avg: 346, med: 187, E: 84.

These metrics do not indicate he is exceptional enough among his peers to meet NPROF C1. JoelleJay (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per NAUTHOR. JoelleJay (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree that there is little sign of WP:NPROF. However, the subject has written two books. Reviews of the books include [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. I think this is enough for the multiple reviews (of multiple works, to avoid WP:BLP1E) of WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR, two major-publisher books (I think he also has a self-published one that we're not even mentioning?) and the multiple book reviews (many found by Russ Woodroofe) that I just added to the article: so far, seven for Why Things Break including two in big-audience publications (Science and Wired); three for Feeding the Fire including one in The Boston Globe. It turns out we're using these as sources for several of our articles, so I was able to de-orphan this article. I also added two independent brief biographies, one for a National Academy Fellows program and another from Encyclopedia.com. I don't understand the claims above about this article being promotional: it is and has been purely factual, merely listing biographical details about Eberhart and the fact that he has published the books that he has published. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might not pass WP:PROF#C1, but appears to pass WP:AUTHOR. I'm not seeing how the text is "promotional"; it's a rather dry mini-bio. XOR'easter (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ revised to Keep. After looking through the findings regarding his authorship (which I did not think to explore heavily) this does indicate that he meets standards by a different metric. Thanks for looking into that further. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 19:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR.4meter4 (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Regnery Publishing. czar 17:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Politically Incorrect Guide[edit]

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

Failing to see how this subject meets notability criteria. Article seems to just list books in the series and provide an advertisement-like blurb to the series. Boredintheevening (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not all of the books in the list are blue-linked, and the wiki-notability case for some of them looks a bit dubious. For example, The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature doesn't seem to have made much of a splash, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design is just a redirect to a brief section in Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). So, arguing that the list needs to exist is somewhat of an uphill task. Is there any reason why the existence of this series can't be briefly described at Regnery Publishing? XOR'easter (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very selective merge to Regnery Publishing. Most of the books don't appear to be wiki-notable in their own right, so the navigational utility of the list is limited, and the series does not appear to be discussed as a whole either. In short, there's a bit to say about it, but it doesn't need a stand-alone article. The blue-linked items from the list and the contents of the "Criticisms" section could be added to § Regnery Publishing (1993–present). XOR'easter (talk) 00:12, 23 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) 22:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per XOR'easter. Wouldn't be better as a standalone article. Sungodtemple (talk) 23:13, 28 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhanjan Sanket[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMEDIA, no sources to support notability. Does not even have a website aside from a Blogspot one. Searching up its Urdu name on Google yields no meaningful results. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:05, 21 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) 22:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMEDIA Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA. Slovenichibo (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom.4meter4 (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salwa Elmitwalli[edit]

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

The Estonian second tier, Egyptian women's league and the Turkish women's league are not listed at WP:FPL so the appearances don't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. None of the sources address her in depth at all and I found nothing in my searches, even when searching in Arabic. The only hits in WP:RS were about other people with the same name. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG unless anyone can demonstrate otherwise from foreign language sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y.3800[edit]

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

Delete The Wikipedia Article is pure form of Advertisment and doesn't show Notability what so ever. See WP:Notability (web) and also WP:FAILN. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user Brascoian (talk) is an account that was created one day ago, the user page also doesn't actually exist it is an empty page Bquast (talk)

@Bquast: It doesn't matter if the account is created 15 years ago, if the account is doing vandalism and non-constructive edits, Its Wrong. Brascoian (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, however this is a fully valid article about the only networking standard in QKD that allows for multi-point networks. Vandalism seems like a very far stretch. The fact that you created a user page that is empty only further delegimizes this unsuported claim Bquast (talk)
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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bquast: It doesn't matter if my user page is empty we are talking about the Notability of the article not my user page. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 16:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: I make out visit to this page in the limited time I have an I find the nom. is !voting. Its a valid keep albeit poorly referenced and I'm not wasting further time. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark, if you're not prepared to spend time on this then you shouldn't be commenting. I have spent some time and have not found significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please enlighten us as to where such coverage exists. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is for the closer to decide. This is a basket case of an AfD. The International Telecommunication Union is a specialized United Nations agency and stuff deserves respect. Djm-leighpark (talk)

@Djm-leighpark: User:Phil Bridger is right if you don't wanna invest your time in this case then don't. After doing more research i cannot found any reliable coverage. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 08:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brascoian: As the !voting nominator you have a vested interest in getting me from doing a more thorough investigation and I must AGF you think you are giving me great advice the actuality of the situation is that is a provocation to commit time and resource at this rather than other stuff. I will choose when and where and if to re-engage on this discussion. I may choose to do so this afternoon should the NHS choose to give a somewhat road distant pretty well housebound in an increasing Covid-19 (Delta?) hotspot now 14 weeks after his first jab ... if not I'm roping family resources to fork-lift him to vac. centre. And my families issues with Covid-19 are mildly significant but trivial to others. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The suggestion that the article is an advertisement is absurd: it is not remotely promotional. Notability is less obvious, and at present I don't have time to do the necessary checking to decide that, but I may come back to it when I have more time. JBW (talk) 20:12, 24 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) 22:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an ITU standard, it's not advertisement. Also, I find the behaviour of Brascoian very suspicious. Supposedly a 10-day old account, they have been editing with extreme assiduity and like a very experienced user. Tercer (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This deletion was proposed by a sockpuppet of the blocked user Zaid Zayd. Hayleez (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ——Serial 15:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Stanislav Tomáš[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS Norden1990 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG. Jdcooper (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed this seems to pass WP:GNG and WP:EVENT and the sources indicate this. The article is slim though and should be expanded. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 23:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep events that receive significant coverage beyond the country in which they occurred typically are notable. This death was the subject of multiple stories in the Guardian[9][10] and was also covered by Glasgow Times[11], Sydney Morning Herald[12], Euronews in Hungarian[13], Newsweek[14], The Washington Post[[15] etc. Not all the news stories name Tomas making them harder to find. (t · c) buidhe 00:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply because this isn't a mundane occurrence. A police killing may count as mundane if it were just that, but this one happened to be filmed and went viral. That extra bit is what makes it not mundane. Mlb96 (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It passes WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 13:50, 29 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. Geschichte (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Zobel[edit]

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

non-notable. This relies on unselective obituaries and notices. References 1 isn't even about her--it's about her father and mentions her name as one of his children. The book review is in a student paper. School yearbooks , wether accessed by ancestry.com or otherwise, do not show notability. We need more articles on the women who are actually notable DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has an entry in Feminists Who Changed America, 1963-1975 (University of Illinois Press; 2006). I'm also surprised to find that we don't have a page for the People's Yellow Pages (Zobel was editor of the Bay Area edition). There's quite a bit of coverage of the publication and her role in it, e.g. SF Chronicle (22 Apr 1981), SF Examiner (27 Aug 1982), and The Rock (v.51, no.4, 1981, p. 34). It appears that her book, Minding her Business, was also reviewed in the LA Times (10 Sep 1999). Let's not delete pages like this one "on the women who are actually notable". pburka (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pburka, and I have added more sources to the article that also support WP:BASIC notability as a tax expert and author, e.g. Los Angeles Times (2011), Midwest Book Review (2005), Entrepreneur (1999); she is also mentioned as an early board member of the San Francisco Women's Building in Mothering the Movement: The Story of the San Francisco Women's Building (2011). Beccaynr (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per location of more sources above per a potential upgrade WP:HEY. These folks in marginalized groups during the pre-google age can be a challenge to locate source material, but I think there’s now enough. Montanabw^(talk) 23:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. There are 20 refs now, including some mentioned above. Not all refs need to support the subject's notability, btw; some just support individual facts. Yearbooks are only used as a published source for facts like "she graduated from Whittier College", and obituaries are only used as a published source for the names/professions of her parents. (I started the article.) Penny Richards (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments by Pburka, Beccaynr, and Penny Richards. I would also say that this fulfills the WP:BIO guidelines and is definitely notable. Historyday01 (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by Pburka and improvements made since the discussion was opened. Star Mississippi 02:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pburka, and because of subsequent improvements. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets GNG, significant coverage over time to write a detailed biography that confirms she was "news worthy" for over 40 years, from the mid-1970s to her death. (There are hundreds of articles about her in a search of newspapers.com.) Besides what is already in the article, she was one of the original editors who founded the People's Yellow Pages,[16] and the only founding editor who was still working on the project at their tenth anniversary.[17] She presented tax seminars throughout the US, including in Hawaii.[18] She was frequently cited as a tax expert and[19],[20] wrote articles about taxes for newspapers.[21] SusunW (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements made by other users since the discussion was opened. Pahiy (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is sufficient coverage of sources. Rondolinda (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the 'Feminists Who Changed America' citation combined with the SF Examiner pieces as cited by Pburka would seem to satisfy GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:46, 30 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. Deleted by User:Athaenara as WP:A10. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 Espérance Sportive de Tunis season[edit]

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

Unreferenced copy and paste move to Main space from Draft:2021–22 Espérance Sportive de Tunis season. Do not draftify, the draft already exists Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tunisia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSEASONS (article just needs sourcing, has nominator even attempted WP:BEFORE?) and merge in the draft to retain the history. Giant Snowman 21:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This actually falls under WP:A10 (recently created article that duplicates an existing topic). I'm tagging the page for speedy deletion. This is a special case though. It may need a WP:VPR to update CSD. Well, I'm tagging it anyway. Sungodtemple (talk) 23:21, 28 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. There is a weak consensus that the topic is the subject of significant coverage, and hence notable. JBL (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plus Magazine[edit]

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

Does not have WP:SIGCOV. The magazine won an award, which could qualify it for WP:WEBCRIT, but the guideline says that "meeting these criteria is not a guarantee that Wikipedia will host a separate, stand-alone article on the website. " and given the lack of coverage I do not believe it is worth having a stand alone article on the subject. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found and added to the article three published sources that each have a paragraph to a page of coverage about this magazine:
- Lawrence, Snezana (July 2006), "Maths is good for you: web-based history of mathematics resources for young mathematicians (and their teachers)", BSHM Bulletin: Journal of the British Society for the History of Mathematics, 21 (2): 90–96, doi:10.1080/17498430600803375
- Kissane, Barry (2009), "Popular mathematics", in Hurst, C.; Kemp, M.; Kissane, B.; Sparrow, L.; Spencer, T. (eds.), Mathematics: It's Mine, Proceedings of the 22nd Biennial Conference of the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers Inc. (PDF), Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers, pp. 125–134
- Growney, JoAnne (July 2011), "Looking at mathematics blogs", Journal of Humanistic Mathematics, 1 (2): 70–74, doi:10.5642/jhummath.201102.08

A fourth, even better, source, is an article in an independent publication entirely about this magazine:

"Websites to visit: Plus Magazine", Convergence, Mathematical Association of America, July 2007

I think that's enough for GNG-level notability for this type of publication. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the grounds of the above sources, it looks like GNG is satisfied. XOR'easter (talk) 21:14, 28 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 Portlethen Academy. Combining redirect and delete below, consensus that the article shouldn't exist, so per WP:ATD, redirecting. Daniel (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fishermoss Primary School[edit]

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

Was a redirect - local coverage one might expect of a local school. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has had significant, sustained coverage across three decades in two seperate newspapers both of which cover a fairly wide area (our local paper is the Mearns Leader, the P&J and Evening Express cover the whole of the northeast of Scotland). Has been the subject of a controversy over three years. Article was redirected but without allowing the PROD to remain up for the required seven days. NemesisAT (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage apart from the routine coverage that virtually all schools will have. A spat over a lollypop person is hardly notable, most of the junior schools in my area have had the same problem but that doesn't make them notable. It seems there is some misunderstanding over WP:PROD, it don't have to stay there 7 days, but if it does the page can be deleted any time after that. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:ATD-R, redirecting was appropriate and I don't see anything that suggests a conflict with PROD in these circumstances. --John B123 (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portlethen Academy where it is mentioned as a feeder school. Does not warrant a separate article per the reasons given by John B123 MB 20:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the sourcing in this article is better than that in Portlethen Academy. It feels a bit arbitrary to delete primary schools but keep secondaries in cases like this. NemesisAT (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs don't consider the quality of articles as written, but more the potential. Fishermoss Primary School is about as good as it's going to get as far as content goes. Looking at Portlethen Academy on Google News, there's quite a bit of scope for expansion and improvement. --John B123 (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Redirect to Portlethen Academy. There does appear some coverage out there about the school, but as John B123 says, it's all the same kind of trivial nonsense that most schools get. It appears the coverage is mostly (or all) local/barely regional also. Which really doesn't help either. I'm fine with a redirect as an alternative to deletion though since its a supplemental school to Portlethen Academy and that article could use the references/content. That said, what's important here isn't really which article has the most sources. The important thing is which topic is more notable as a topic and in this case Portlethen Academy is just higher on the "school notability" list. Like a university or school district is more notable then a preschool would be whatever the amount of references in each article is. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm just finding it bizarre that other Wikipedians will reject an article with ample sources simply because of what it documents. I've run into similar discussions over bus routes and stations, but for some reason railway stations are always considered notable even if they have no or hardly any sources. I find it a bit off putting (though I keep finding myself coming back to Wikipedia!). I don't see how keeping this article harms anyone or the encyclopedia. NemesisAT (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I can understand that. Wikipedia is definitely inconsistent sometimes, but that's to be expected due to the vast range of subjects it covers. Plus, guidelines tend to be intentionally vague. Which I totally understand. I also understand why railway stations are always considered notable compared to bus routes and stations. They have way more historical significance and are way more likely to have coverage about them. That said, I've seen a few AfDs for train stations closed as delete. So, I don't think it's always true that they are presumed to be notable.

Generally, things depend a lot on when the AfD discussion takes place, who participates, and what the wider trends of Wikipedia are at the time. Sure, an argument could be made that keeping the article doesn't hurt anyone, but an argument could also be made that retaining the article hurts the overall quality of Wikipedia. Then we are just left head butting each other over personal opinions. Which really isn't productive. So, I choose to go with following the notability guidelines myself. I can see where your coming from though. A different time, crowd, and you'd probably have a "winning" argument. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect Primary schools are not notable, and the coverage here does not go beyond routine local nothingness. Reywas92^Talk 06:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Primary schools are not notable" is a blanket statement. Some are. NemesisAT (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per norm, Does not meet WP:GNG or the latter. Slovenichibo (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP: SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The central point in this debate is whether the sources that Haleth provided are sufficient to establish notability. Of those, the Kotaku sources are probably the most substantial. An argument against these sources counting for notability is that they are more about the preceding wikis than the new Fallout Wiki and that the coverage of the latter is more tangential. However, the article contains information about the history of the preceding wikis as well, so it can be argued that the article's subject is wider than its title would suggest. I do not necessarily agree with that perspective, but find that the "keep" position has merit to it. As to level of support for each position, while there is a sizable majority for deletion it is not so large that I can call it a consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout Wiki[edit]

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

Does not look to pass GNG, only trivial coverage. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 17:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 17:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 22:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- passes WP:GNG. There are five references that are significant coverage along with additional four. enjoyer -- talk 03:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's take a look at the sources to determine if they represent sustained, significant coverage. Nine citations. Two are from the subject in question, a fan-wiki, making it WP:USERG. 4 of the 7 remaining mention The Vault explicitly. Of these, basically none are actually about The Vault. The Kotaku and Eurogamer sources are about fans spending a lot of time editing it. One is about the person who started it. None of these constitute SIGCOF. Subject isn't notable to anyone outside of "a small population of enthusiastic fans". — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST. The current Fallout Fandom site is actually a merger from two Fallout Wikis, Nukapedia and the Vault, as reflected in the article subtitle and its contents. And there has been sustained coverage about both Nukapedia and the Vault with sources that has yet to be cited in the article:

Fallout Fans Continue To Struggle With The Company That Hosts Their Wiki

Fallout Fans Resist Wikia’s Attempt To Pivot To Video

Fans Spend 54 Years Writing New Vegas Wiki

The Vault Wiki was also cited by reliable publications as a source and something of an involved 3rd party during the legal battle between Bethesda and Interplay.

Battle over Fallout Online MMO rages on

Interplay responds to Bethesda's 'absurd' claim that its Fallout MMO can't involve Fallout

Bethesda Claims Interplay Wants to “Undermine” Fallout

It is rare for fan Wikis to get that kind of coverage to warrant a standalone Wikipedia article, but in this case it does exist. Haleth (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For all the reasons listed above by Haleth and Enjoyer. Devastatin' Dave^{ZIP ZAP RAP} 04:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not rigorous or notable, does not constitute SIGCOF, citations existing and those listed above are either from the subject itself, not able to be verified, not objective, or not related to/about the subject. Theregoesmy (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NEXIST, sources cited by Haleth seem sufficient enough to prove notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Haleth. I'm as surprised as anyone that the sourcing exists for meeting WP:GNG here, but the coverage looks fine to me. Suriname0 (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes minimum notability criteria and WP:NEXIST per evidences provided by User:Haleth. Wario-Man ^talk 08:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per ImaginesTigers. I am not convinced that the sources meet the criteria for WP:SIGCOV for a standalone article. Being cited does not confer notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The sources in the article do not present significant coverage. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 04:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ARTN under the notability guideline page, article content does not determine notability, which is the property of the subject in question, and when the source material exists, even a lack of adequate sourcing within the article itself will not decrease the subject's notability. The Kotaku articles I brought up discussed one of the Fallout wiki predecessors specifically and in detail, and the article has yet to cite them. Also, ImaginesTigers' source analysis is incorrect; the articles are specifically about the Vault and its status as one of the largest and most popular wiki sites at the time, not at all a general discussion about the activities of Fallout fandom and other fansites as they claimed. Haleth (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only passing mentions of subject and nothing significant. Slovenichibo (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's helpful, I'll point out that the discussion should probably focus more on the additional sources identified by Haleth, particularly (1) and (2), both by Kotaku/VICE writer Gita Jackson. Debateably WP:SIGCOV, but certainly not "passing mentions". Suriname0 (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two separate full-length articles by the same author/source count in aggregate as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability, so it is not up for debate whether it is in fact WP:SIGCOV. The question would be, how much of the extent of available sources within and outside of the article is enough to meet the WP:SIGCOV threshold, and there is no vetted objective standard for the concept as every editor has different standards and metrics on how much is enough. Haleth (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are trivial with the exception of the two articles from Kotaku. However, as they have the same author it really isn’t enough RS to meet the multiple sources criteria of GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Haleth. Sources are sparse indeed, and I too am not sure if they are sufficient. But compared with the dozens or hundreds of other fandom sites out there, this actually has some sources to show for it. And so I'm leaning keep here. --LordPeterII (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:SIGCOV -- unlike Haleth, I find that the sources don't deal with the subject in depth, but only deal with certain related events, basically disputes between a community on the internet and a certain company, which is an immense trope of the videogame culture and the internet as a whole, and not specific to the subject at all -- none of these sources tell us that much about the subject. The Destructoid article Fans spend 58 years updating the Fallout New Vegas wiki covers a brief phase of the subject's history. That actually appears to be the strongest reference. However, that article is three short paragraphs long, because it essentially addresses a single piece of information, a spike in activity in 2010, which is a minor curiosity, if even that, i.e. a triviality. This is about the sources referenced in this discussion. As to the rest, I've reviewed them too, and I join ImaginesTigers' argument. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a fansite would need significant independent coverage to warrant a standalone article, and this subject does not meet that standard. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Fallout (series). I'm not entirely persuaded by the sources cited by Haleth: they refer mostly to this wiki's predecessors. With what scant coverage we have, mentioning this topic in the context of its game series makes more sense to me. Sandstein 07:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per ImaginesTigers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan beylerbey-dom[edit]

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

Literally every sentence of this article is filled with violations of WP:VER and WP:RS. Source #1 is a Russian-language link that doesn't cite sources. Idem for #2. Source #3 is published by the government of the Azerbaijani Republic (see also; Media freedom in Azerbaijan), and is filled with the typical anti-Iranian/anti-Armenian pseudo-historic ramblings (see also; Historical_negationism#Azerbaijan), such as (page 21); "For this reason, all surnames beginning from ”melik” are Albanian". The phrase " According to the Istanbul Treaty, the Safavids lost most of Azerbaijan (both south and north side of Azerbaijan)", citing Maeda, an accredited historian, blatantly fails WP:VER when I decided to check the source. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the points above. This is just pure revisionism. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the disastrous sourcing brought up by nom. I suppose WP:TNT could eventually apply, but definitely not with this research as the bedrock. OhioShmyo (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is heavily based on unreliable and revisionist sources. Plus it seems the few reliable citations such as Iranica are falsified or misrepresented; e.g. look at citation #10 and compare the claim with the original content. I'd suggest some editors review all created articles[22] by the author of this article. They may suffer from very same issues. Wario-Man ^talk 02:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toringdon[edit]

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

So this is a "mixed-use" development--the article doesn't clearly tell you, but it's in Charlotte, NC, in the US, which is why almost all the references are from the Charlotte Business Journal, and that's of course the problem. This project, the article for which at times looks like a real estate listing, has not gotten significant discussion in the national or supra-regional press. There's stuff like this, but that, like the CBJ articles, is half-press release and less-than-half journalistic coverage. So I do not believe this to be notable via the GNG, and there is of course no inherent notability for a thing like this. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable outside of local press and press releases Dexxtrall (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found a couple of PR, maybe borderline notability. Slovenichibo (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom.4meter4 (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There was a general consensus to keep the article. Attempts to solicit even more opinions were unsuccessful. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sakshi Malik (actor)[edit]

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

References do not show the notability of the subject. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG GermanKity (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Speedy Keep: As a creator. I mean, seriously? By simply searching Sakshi Malik actor on Google, 68,400 news results are being displayed. Also, according to WP:NACTOR, the subject should have significant roles in multiple...productions. The subject has done roles in videos, movies, telecommericals. Also, as per the same policy, she should havea large fan base or a significant "cult" following. She has over 5 million followers alone on Instagram. There are many sources which are enough to pass WP:GNG and I will add them gradually to the page. --Sankoswal (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanKity: I think you may not be aware with Indian languages like Hindi and Marathi. Multiple sources of the subject are available in those languages apart from English. In the article I have added a dozen more sources, which you may check and reconsider your decision so that time of the community can be utilised in other tasks. --14:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware very well with Hindi language.GermanKity (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sankoswal, but come on dude, don't do this guy like that. The "time of the community" is being utilized regardless of this nomination, and if the nominator doesn't speak Hindi or Marathi, then they don't, but you do, so thank you, but lay off, dude. Also, just saying, "68,400 results" on a Google search means nothing if 68,000 of them are unreliable sources, passing mentions, news reposts, or spam pages. AdoTang (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AdoTang: got your overall point. By 68400 results, I meant Google News results, not hits on the search engine which is in millions. I have edited the same in original comment. --Sankoswal (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After doing a lot of translation from Hindi, I find that the references meet the basic requirements: WP:BASIC tells, People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Coverage in multiple Indian newspapers and Entertainment times meet the criteria referenced. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are no grounds at WP:NACTOR since there are no multiple lead roles as such. Her fame is because of one song which indicates towards WP:1E and following that, the rational would say that this is redirected to the song page (in this case, the movie page). The controversy, however, adds another event because of which she is in notice and hence WP:1E might not be applicable any more. This needs more discussion. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:40, 28 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. Most participants deem the sourcing sufficient. While some of them may be based on press releases, there are others that provide analysis of the song and music as well. Since there is sufficient merit behind the rough consensus for keeping, that consensus will be respected here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stars Align (R3hab and Jolin Tsai song)[edit]

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

DePRODed by article creator, so here we are. Claimed in edit summary that this record has a chart place but that's not in the stub, and I can't find it. Meanwhile, it's all sourced to Yahoo, a website and a passing news mention of the upcoming single. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NALBUM. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no good place for a redirect because the song is not from an album and it is a collaboration between two musicians. The song got some media introductions due to its association with the video game but they are not significant, and I also can find no evidence of chart placement. That last item might be available in Taiwanese or Chinese language sources that we have been unable to find so far; anyone with the necessary skills is welcome to chime in. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article was proposed for deletion just over an hour after it was created. Per WP:BEFORE section C, I think this article ought to be kept for a bit longer in case the creator or other editors can improve it. How do we encourage editors to contribute if we try to get their work deleted less than an hour after creation? It's not very inviting. NemesisAT (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE section C assumes the article can be improved, and the nomination for deletion is based on the different matter of notability at WP:NSONG. If this song really did receive significant news coverage and made the charts in Taiwan, then that evidence is needed regardless of when the article was created. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at the sources and there's both English and Chinese coverage, from Taiwan News, Yahoo, and a newspaper. So it appears there is already significant coverage. Plus I stand by my comment there should be more time given to allow notability to be established before a deletion nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article published to mainspace is subject to review by new page patrol. There's no agreed timescale for this - if it's in mainspace, it's presumed to be a mainspace-ready article. There are tags an editor can use to flag that an article is still under construction. As doomsdayer520 points out above, the issue is notability, not article construction. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The compromise here might to to WP:DRAFTIFY it then. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the top-charts website has come up for discussion before, but there weren't many contributors. I wasn't convinced that it should be a chart website that Wikipedia should be using. Richard3120 (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has been covered in a dedicated article by at least one national newspaper, and mentioned by two other newspapers. Sources for chart listings have since been added to the article. Hence all the main criteria for WP:NSONG are met. (I am the article creator) Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Pieceofmetalwork (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

For information Pieceofmetalwork, I don't think any of those charts are valid – iTunes definitely fails WP:SINGLEVENDOR, and I think QQ Music does as well. I'm not sure about the China New Music Daily. Richard3120 (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If any references in chinese or similar become more avilable, taking into considration it was released for a very well known video game, I might change my vote. Those charts in Itunes are not good. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSONG per above argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Ku, Daniel (2021-04-23). "宛如一場服裝秀！拆解Jolin新歌〈Stars Align〉所有行頭". Vogue (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
2. Chang, Lily (2021-04-29). "Jolin蔡依林MV《Stars Align》3大看點！8套絕美華服背後辛酸淚，墾丁超時工作厭世臉曝光. Jolin的MV拍得美美，但其實工作時很辛苦啊！". Cosmopolitan (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
3. Lin, Sandy (2021-03-19). "幸福來得太突然！呸姐深夜IG丟震撼彈「蔡依林、R3HAB」全新單曲〈Stars Align〉週末全球同步上架". Elle (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
4. "蔡依林被導演狂操24小時　笑喊：很想退休". zh:鏡週刊 (in Chinese). 2021-04-23. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
5. 徐子茗 (2021-05-11). "播放量破200万！酷狗竖屏MV助推蔡依林《Stars Align》出圈" (in Chinese). zh:江西广播电视台. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20 – via China Daily.
6. 尤嬿妮 (2021-04-28). "〈Stars Align〉熬夜拍MV撐不住蔡依林送導演臭臉". China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
7. 翁子涵 (2021-04-21). "蔡依林首跳新歌《Stars Align》　加碼「神級地板動作」掛彩！". zh:ETtoday新聞雲 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
8. "亞洲天后Jolin蔡依林全新MV〈Stars Align〉狂換8套絕美造型展現時尚魅力" (in Chinese). Line Corporation. 2021-04-25. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
9. 鄭孟緹 (2021-04-21). "8公斤炫銀戰袍上陣！蔡依林首跳〈Stars Align〉融合voguing、地板動作操到爆". zh:明報周刊 (in Chinese). Media Chinese International. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Stars Align to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources by Cunard show sufficient significant coverage to keep the article at this time. We may end up reviewing the coverage again sometime down the road, but there is no deadline.Mojo Hand (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Chinese language sources above are press release generated non-significant coverage. The.single.did.not.chart. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Vogue article is titled "It's like a costume show! Explaining all the lines of Jolin's new song "Stars Align"". From Google Translate:
Jolin and R3HAB worked together to create a brand new electronic music English single "Stars Align". The song is based on electronic dance music as the overall framework, while adding R3HAB's expertise in electronic rhythm, making the whole song full of dynamic and layered, with Jolin extremely The distinctive words and unique voice lines are perfectly integrated into the dance style, and the lyrics repeatedly sing "Make the stars align", suggesting that an important moment is coming.
This is analysis of the song. It is not trivial coverage or press release material. Cunard (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article needs a little expansion. Other than that, it's good enough to pass WP:NSONG, especially with reliable sources indicated by Cunard. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to repeat my above comment - The Chinese language sources above are press release generated non-significant coverage. The.single.did.not.chart. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear - to quote WP:NSONG - "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries or reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work." - my italics. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't analysed the Chinese sources above, but the English ones already cited appear to be WP:SIGCOV, and their content varies so they aren't just a reposting of a press release. There is ample coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, imo. NemesisAT (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexandermcnabb, not all notable songs made their way to any national chart. Therefore, it's no big deal if the song didn't chart. No. Big. Deal. At all. The song has received WP:SIGCOV, whether it's in English or Chinese or any other language, and that's what matters. And Cunard proved that the Chinese sources he indicated are not press releases, making your claims baseless. So, it's best if you drop the stick and accept that there's good enough coverage for the song to pass WP:NSONG than to waste your time arguing with any of the editors who voted to keep it. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm quoting policy, not sure how that's 'arguing'. There's no stick in evidence here, either. Cunard, I note, proved no such thing - they presented sources. Having reviewed them, I asserted they are "media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work." and made that point. Nobody has refuted that. It's not a stick, it's a point. And not, I hasten to assure you, a pointy point. But you also have a point and I am now done here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NemesisAT and Cunard. Various reliable sources are available, albeit some in Chinese. Additionally, how is nominating an article for deletion shortly after creation helpful? If there were immediate issues with it, by all means, send it to draftspace or something; doing otherwise discourages article creation. Sean Stephens (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus not to retain article, no consensus and a level of disagreement about a soft redirect. Daniel (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erudition[edit]

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

Article discusses only the term "erudition", not the topic of erudition itself. See WP:NOTADICT. Article is entirely unreferenced and seems to be WP:OR. It's not readily apparent to me that either the term "erudition" or the concept of erudition itself are notable topics passing WP:GNG. Even if such a case can be made, none of the current content is useable, so WP:TNT applies. Daask (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. It is a little more than a dictionary definition; unfortunately, what it adds to the definition is not encyclopedia material. We get an argument-from-etymology fallacy, a bit of personal opinion, and a paragraph of "I, too, majored in Western Lit". It's all unsourced (tagged as such since 2012!), and if sources for the claims of fact were dug up, it would be WP:SYNTH. Improving the article to the point where it would be worth keeping would amount to rewriting it from scratch. XOR'easter (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sure needs some attention and sources, but other than that a perfectly valid and relevant article to exist. I also disagree with the sentiment that none of the current content is usable. Why exactly not? --Gharren (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's meandering, unsourced, personal opinion. Not a line of it lives up to encyclopedic standards. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary, considering the alternatives to deletion. It's a word whose meaning has some interesting nuances, good for a dictionary, but not an article. There are various related topics (Education, Intellectual, Liberal arts education), but "erudition" isn't exactly any one of them, while the vague place in between is not a real standalone topic. The page views as well as the unhelpfulness of most search results suggest that it's worth keeping around as a redirect. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary.4meter4 (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per XOR'easter. Soft redirects are appropriate only if they are useful to users of the encyclopedia, which I see no evidence for, otherwise this is a case wher WP:ATD specifically does not apply: see WP:R#DELETE. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sushil Kumar#Personal life. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Dhankhar[edit]

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

Article was created for the sole purpose of highlighting the arrest of Sushil Kumar for the alleged murder of subject. Subject himself is not independently notable on either WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSPERSON. See also the first paragraph of WP:VICTIM. Johnnie Bob (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep :: Sagar Dhankar was a wrestler and it is unsolved quest. He is notable especially in wrestling community.I love to be honest (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Sushil Kumar and redirect. Agree that the article is not independently notable but the content still relevant to the reader. RationalPuff (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This wrestler had no significant coverage until his murder. Koridas ^(Heyyyyyyy) 21:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sushil_Kumar#Personal_life, where it's already mentioned. Otherwise a BLP1E issue, although he's recently deceased Star Mississippi 23:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. The user is creating articles for no other purpose other than to create. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Slovenichibo (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sushil_Kumar#Personal_life.4meter4 (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GeekBrief.TV[edit]

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

Procedural: PROD tag added, but removed on grounds it had been previously PRODed 15 years ago. In the words of the PROD tag:

"This podcast does not meet WP:GNG. A Google News search turns up a few very brief mentions of the podcast by lesser known or questionable sources such as labnol.org and areyouscreening.com with the most notable sources being tomsguide.com and thetyee.ca, however, none of these dedicate more than a sentence to the podcast. Neal Campbell, one of the cohosts, wrote for SocialNewsDaily.com a few times so random articles from that site shows up in Google searches, but none of those actually contain information about the podcast. The podcast itself has been inactive for over a decade and it's extremely unlikely to generate further news coverage." Calton | Talk 13:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable Dexxtrall (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable podcast. Slovenichibo (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Melinda and Melinda#Soundtrack. Content is already in the article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda and Melinda (soundtrack)[edit]

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

Unnotable soundtrack album. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The soundtrack to the film of the same name by "Master" Woody Allen. Tagged for notability since 2020. During my search I only found the usual databases, retail sites, trivial mentions and streaming links, plus a couple of "Win Melinda and Melinda soundtrack" blurbs. None of these are notability-supporting sites. Couldn't find a review to this soundtrack album. Not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As a compilation album at least half of which consisted of old recordings by long-deceased artists, this album was unlikely to receive many reviews (and none are cited here). No evidence has been provided that this album reached any sales charts or was nominated for any awards. As a second choice, merge to Melinda and Melinda, the film to which this is the soundtrack. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Melinda and Melinda. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Melinda and Melinda, there is no content to merge. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:32, 30 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 Ateneo de Manila University#University Archives. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ateneo de Manila University Archives[edit]

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

Promo, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete,nothing to indicate that these archives are either remarkable or noteworthy.TheLongTone (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ateneo de Manila University#University Archives. Fails WP:GNG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Villejuif stabbing[edit]

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

Unremarkable crime, does not seem to have generated any lasting /ongoing attention. TheLongTone (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was a mental health issue, not a terrorist attack. WWGB (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand why this article should be eliminated. It has been confirmed as a terrorist attack (read the Europol terrorism report released a couple of days ago). Then, even if it was not a terrorist attack, it is still a notable event. The article is full of details about the events. All the informations about the attack, the perpetrator and the investigation were added, like many more pages of attacks in and outside Europe. Wikipedia is full articles about attacks carried out both by terrorist and people with mental problems. So calling a deletion for this article just because "it was a mental health issue fact" (even if, again, this is not the case as a terrorist motive has been confirmed), doesen't make sense. Gianluigi02 (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. We do not compare articles to each other (WP:WHATABOUTX) and there is a notability guide for events at WP:EVENTCRITERIA. While the article has multiple, reliable references, it does not indicate how this event has a lasting effect. Almost all the references are within a week of each other and nothing else has emerged since. Notability has little to do with what caused the event, be it terrorism or mental health issues. From the notability guide, "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." Ifnord (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for a notable event Dexxtrall (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEVENT, coverage was limited to a single news cycle. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep:
- It is mentioned on page 44 in the 2021 TE SAT report (PDF) by Europol in June 2021, it passes the WP:GNG.
- This attack has also been widely reported in French-language media where it received national coverage. Using search terms in French like "villejuif attaque couteau" in Bing search engine yields 500 thousand search hits. Therefore the claims that the attack "did not receive coverage" are clearly false.
- The WP:GNG does not care whether the attack was motivated by mental illness or not.
The subject lives up to WP:SIGCOV for the aforementioned reasons, therefore the subjet can have a WP:STANDALONE article. A Thousand Words (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Checking the fr.WP version of this subject, there about 30 sources, a number of which are dated 2021, which indicates long-term coverage. Therefore this subject has general notability (WP:GNG) per WP:SIGCOV. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I can tell, not a single source on the current version of French article is from 2021. Two of them are consulté le 25 avril 2021, i.e. accessed in 2021, but the sources themselves are dated 2020. TompaDompa (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed you are right, but the Europol source is from 2021 and Europol is, according to you, a very important and weighty source. A Thousand Words (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The attack is also mentioned in this article from marianne.net, published in April 2021. This didn't take long to find and I haven't even started on the 500 thousand Bing search engine results. A Thousand Words (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - The TE-SAT (Europol's annual Terrorism Situation and Trend report, for those not familiar with it) is an ideal source for attributing "terrorism" WP:INTEXT (as mandated by MOS:LABEL) and contains useful information on and analysis of broader trends, but it is usually comparatively light on details and analysis of individual events. This is no exception.
        Likewise, the marianne.net article is about a completely different topic, namely whether there is a link between psychiatric issues and terrorism, and the only thing it has to say about this event is a single sentence: En 2020, Nathan Chiasson, auteur de l'attaque du parc départemental des Hautes-Bruyères à Villejuif avait été diagnostiqué schizophrène.
        I don't know that a brief mention as an example of a broader phenomenon constitutes WP:Significant coverage conferring notability and hence suitability for a stand-alone Wikipedia article for the individual event.
        The fact that you got half a million search results would seem to me to indicate a large number of duplicates and false positives, since it seems rather unlikely that (on average) roughly a thousand articles have been written in French about this event every day since it occurred.
        All in all, I find your arguments unpersuasive; there are some serious flaws, falsehoods, and exaggerations found within. TompaDompa (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article definitely meets the criteria for a valid wikipedia page. MountainJew6150 (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NEVENT. Slovenichibo (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ifnord.4meter4 (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Seventh Dimension#Discography as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Circle of Life (album)[edit]

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

Fail of WP:NALBUM. Nothing to demonstrate pass of WP:GNG either. nearlyevil 665 09:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 09:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 09:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of RS coverage at all, never charted anywhere. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - found reviews in Prog archives and Encyclopaedia Metallum. --Ashley yoursmile! 13:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are reliable, sorry. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added a reference from a published magazine. They were covered with a review and interview in Fireworks Magazine (in the UK) in which Circle of Life was also talked about. --User:EducatedOwl (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM. The sources presented by Ashleyyoursmile, including the ones in the article, are reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Encyclopaedia Metallum has been considered generally unreliable as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. As for the Prog archives review, the reviewer is someone named Alexander Peterson, aka RUNE2000, and a Google search on neither his real name or his alias shows anything to attest for said reviewer's notability or significance in the music reviewing industry.

As for the references in the article, the first one is a Rockarena.com.uk, which is a website without an About Us section and no established reliability or independence. They have 5000 FB likes on their page and their articles read like fan contributions. And BTW, their entire 'article' is a copy-paste of this band PR. The second reference is Fireworks Magazine, which is not available online, but even if assuming Wikipedia:Assume good faith there is no reason to assume the magazine itself is notable, reliable or a metric to attest for notability. Even if it were, that would only be one reference and hence not a pass of WP:NALBUM#1 which reads "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.".

That being said, could you clarify if you don't agree with any of these points? nearlyevil 665 05:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Seventh Dimension. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS coverage. Slovenichibo (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signboard, Virginia[edit]

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

This is one of the more confusing to research geostubs I've run into lately. So this isn't on the 1918 topo, but appears on the 1949 topo as Ruther Glen Corner at a road junction with little there. Things start to get confusing here, as Ruther Glen, Virginia is a real place about 4 miles to the northwest. By 1969, the minimal amount of stuff at the road junction is now labeled as Signboard. Searching for "Signboard" brings up basically nothing besides literal signboards, while searching for "Ruther Glen Corner" brings up a bunch of stuff about the notable community of Ruther Glen 4 miles away and a single mention that Ruther Glen Corner was now known as Signpost. Searching for "Signpost" brought up some mentions for the generic noun, as well as a single mention that someone was "of" Signpost. But there's also Sign Post, Virginia elsewhere, so it's difficult to determine which Signpost this was referring to.

So essentially, this place has had at least three names, and all are difficult to search for. Signboard is a common noun, Ruther Glen Corner is very similar to the name of a real place, and Signpost is both of the above. I couldn't find any indication in this maze of difficult-to-search-for names that this site is notable; maybe others can do better. Hog Farm _Talk 03:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is a toughie. I don't have time for searching right now, but Streetview strongly suggests that there was something town-like here, as does the 1960s era aerial. There are two surviving buildings that were obviously businesses, and the aerial shows that there used to be several other buildings at the NW corner. If I have time soon I'll see if I can look them up by address and see what they were. The road leading north is called Signboard Rd., so one expects this was thought of as some sort of a spot, but the question is, what? Mangoe (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 28 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. czar 17:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World Media Rights[edit]

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

Non-notable ROTM production company. Speedy request was declined on the basis that the company has produced two TV series, but even if those are notable (and I'd say that's far from clear), per WP:INHERITORG notability is not inherited.

The article is referenced only with the company's own website, and a search finds nothing even resembling sigcov (some RS hits, yes, but not discussing the actual company itself to any meaningful extent). Hence fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in RS, lots of blogs and stuff. Company website's news section doesn't even provide evidence of anything compelling going on. ROTM indeed. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - added several more works, mentioned Netflix and other customers, added independent news source. More to come. It's still just a stub, give it half a chance. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You created this article almost a month ago (and straight away it was tagged for lack of notability); wouldn't you agree that amounts to more than half a chance already? Stub or no stub, the subject must be notable, and to establish notability you need significant coverage in independent, secondary reliable sources. I didn't find any in my BEFORE search, but if you know of some, please feel free to add them. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem the sources are out there to demonstrate notability Dexxtrall (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Tan[edit]

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

Venture capitalist does not meet WP:NBIO- coverage of the individual is largely WP:PASSING mentions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the sources do not present significant coverage. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 21:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, not enough detail. ♟♙ (talk) 23:55, 29 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:CSK #1: the nominator "fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection, [instead] only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging." Proposals to merge may be made by following the process detailed at WP:PAM. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Szegilong[edit]

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

Megre into Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén. This village is not notable on its own. --Ireadbooks12 (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT#1 (no argument for deletion or redirection). Regardless, is notable as it passes WP:GEOLAND.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:03, 28 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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GEOLAND as per KSH Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 28 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 10:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinoy Henyo (Philippine television show)[edit]

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

Repeatedly sent to draft for lack of sources by reviewers and repeatedly recreated in mainspace without sources. This belongs in draft until it’s properly sourced. Mccapra (talk) 08:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ Delete and salt per nom. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can confirm that the article that the nominator nominated might likely (or if it is, possibly) to be a hoax.----Rdp060707|talk 12:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a game segment in another television series called Eat Bulaga! and a rather obscure Google Play app. I can't find any news stating about Agoncillo getting the hosting gig for this program. Rodriguez left Eat Bulaga on 2021 not Pinoy Henyo as this article states. I also can't find reliable references for "KingFB News TV". I also found an obscure Youtube channel called Justin Andrew Nario which advertises snippets of the Eat Bulaga pinoy henyo segments as a television program on "KingFB News TV". KTV is the term for karaoke box in the Philippines. Finally, one of their judges is called Dr Tae which is literally Dr Shit in Filipino. I smell a hoax. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Per WP:G3. The game existed as a segment of Eat Bulaga, but not as a standalone TV show. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per WP:G3. Obvious hoax. Pinoy Henyo is a segment of Eat Bulaga. The content is also made-up. HiwilmsTalk 19:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: CSD G3 - The article is essentially complete bollocks; no such television show exists or has existed. A section on another show does not independent television make... Jack Frost (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Amenta[edit]

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

Initially started this as an AfD, then mid-way through making the talk page the evidence tilted me to making it a PROD. That was removed for a valid reason I wasn't aware of so now I am circling back with the AfD I initially intended to make.

She seems to be a rather unremarkable scientist where the wiki page has been in need of citations for 8 years. There is a single source to her faculty page which was broken for some time (and admin fixed this earlier). That page has minimal info and only provides some very basic information on her. I was unable to find anything meaningful about her through searching methods that could even come close to satisfying notability guidelines. There's also a list of books on the side of the page that she seems to not have written and I am not sure why they are there as they don't even seem science related? Of what I did find, she appears to fail WP:GNG as well as WP:PROF by a good margin.

Arguments for Non-notability[edit]

There is very limited information that comes up through searching which already suggests insufficient notability. To be considered for WP:PROF, one of the 8 conditions must be met, for each she does not, as explained:

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

No. According to google scholar and Scopus, she has around 20 papers published, about 60 citations, and an h-score of 5. For someone late in their career this is very low. However, this is unsurprising as (assuming the article in the information is accurate) took a slow and long path to professorship had has not been a research heavy professor. As such she would not be noteworthy by point 1.

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

No. While she won awards, they all seem internal to her institution. I was unable to find any national or international level awards, and it would be surprising if she had based on her career path.

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

No. She does not appear to have been part of any high society or association.

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

No. Given her small publishing footprint, it would be quite surprising if she had.

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

No.. While she was department chair for a period of time at JMU, this does not appear to be a named or distinguished appointment.

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

No. She does not seem to ascended beyond being department chair for 10 years.

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

No. I was unable to find any evidence of this, including searching for impact by her teaching.

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

No. This does not seem to be the case and I couldn't find anything on this.

Other Comments[edit]

From what I found on rate-professor pages, she is regarded as a kind and friendly person, and she seems to have had a long and positive career likely impacting many students. It however, sadly does not count towards notability guidelines and the is article just doesn't cut the mustard for being on wikipedia. If there was something I missed and it turns out she is noteworthy though, please indicate. I am relatively new at this and still make mistakes here and there regarding wiki policies.

Thanks! --Tautomers_{(T C)} 06:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her citation counts are not high enough for WP:PROF#C1, her university-level distinguished teacher awards do not meet the level of #C2, and her work as department head neither meets #C5 (which is about chairs given for scholarly excellence, not administrative roles) nor #C6 (which only applies to the head of an entire university). The "notable works" in her infobox appear to have been copied from Renata Adler and have no connection to her. So we have no evidence of passing any notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with David Eppstein. I don't see a pass via citations on C1 nor do I see any of the other NPROF boxes ticked.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A worthy person, but clearly does not meet our criteria for an article. --Bduke (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry but GS citations are not enough for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No evidence of citations for WP:NPROF C1, nor of any other NPROF criterion, nor of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well-examined nomination and David Eppstein. Though her article did inspire me to write a Frank B. Mallory (chemist) stub for her advisor and page-move and do some work on his eponymous Mallory reaction, so that's some win here. DMacks (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No thank button here so I shall say thanks for the new articles/improvement! --Tautomers_{(T C)} 20:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and other arguments here. Being a really good professor unfortunately does not merit you your own wiki article, unless you're so good that completely unaffiliated people start talking about it.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have already said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some versions of Wikipedia have a standard that all full professors are notable, but we have no such standard of Wikipedia, and as was clearly demonstrated in the nomination Amenta does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pasting my comment from the PROD discussion: She indeed only has an h-index of 5 and a total of 67 citations, well, well below that of other chemists with WP articles. Being a professor is by itself not enough to meet NPROF; the article as it stands definitely does not demonstrate notability of the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 18:59, 28 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global Adjustments[edit]

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

non notable company. references do not show the notability of the subject. lack of significant coverage with in-depth information on the company GermanKity (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG, a search brought up only primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Thank you for nominating this. It is interesting to note that it was kept in its first discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Adjustments. The sources cited by those users - most of them don't exists any more except 1 [23] which also reads very ad-like. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources appear to be routine coverage stories when they started/as per their press conference, while others are op-ed by the founder. Lovelife11111 (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FundsIndia[edit]

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

Indian Private company filled with Press releases/announcements or selfpublished resources, WP:MILL. Lack of significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. GermanKity (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every source has been checked out. Not one is a press release or self-published. All are independent reliable sources with named journalists (except the first) and nothing in the source to suggest it was self-published. Please list which sources are press releases or self-published, and provide evidence to support that opinion. -- GreenC 05:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three sources that can be considered are

[24] - an independent article on founders exiting because of investors.
[25] This can be used but I am double minded on this. It has some independent comments but at the top it says Portfolio in place of journalist. When you click on portfolio, there seems to be a mix of stories that could be paid or not.
[26] According to reference table this is Times of India. Looks good enough to me.

Some more here [27] & [28]. I must also say that all funding related references are not useful and should be removed as much as possible (unless citing some information). I can see why nominator felt like this should be deleted. But WP:BEFORE is giving good reasons to save it and improve it probably. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all references are not useful. So need to clean up. And the subject meet criteria. So keep. Trakinwiki (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1- Press Release/Anouncement fails WP:ORGIND, 2 - Press Release/Anouncement fails WP:ORGIND, 3 - Press Release/Anouncement fails WP:ORGIND.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GermanKity (talk • contribs)

medianama.com [29] is a signed business journalism article containing original reporting/opinions in the voice of the author ("What's interesting..").
techcircle [30] contains no evidence of a being press release, it is business journalism (signed author).
business-standard.com [31] by appearances is business journalism not a press release.

-- GreenC 02:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thhindu- Press Release/Anouncement fails WP:ORGIND. Medianama- Press Release/Anouncement fails WP:ORGIND, Techcircle.in - Press Release/Anouncement fails WP:ORGIND. Business Standard - Press Release/Anouncement fails WP:ORGIND, Livmint - It is a subscription couldn't check the entire article but it seems like just a passing mention. Mydigitalfc.com - Press Release on non reliable resource. TOI - Dead link, dead link. imgur - Nothing found on non reliable resource but creator mentioned TOI. Thehindu - it looks like paid, not independent of the subject. Indiatimes - Un-Relevant article, nowhere mention about the subject. Thhindu - Press Release/Announcement. Economictimes - dead link GermanKity (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So... repeatedly calling it a press release does not make it so. Read WP:ORGIND which says the source needs to have some sort of vested interest with the company. Where is the evidence these sources have a vested interest? You are ignoring evidence that runs counter to intuitions ("looks like"), while providing no evidence in support. I've added wayback links to the dead links. -- GreenC 04:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient and reliable sources exist. Webmaster862 (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As there are significant reliable sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everonn Public School[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage that are independent of the subject. fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:GNG GermanKity (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, no sources found. Heart ^(talk) 05:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quite self-evidently not note worthy + lack of sources + no sources to be found when searched. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 07:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and nothing found that would meet the requirements of WP:ORGDEPTH Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero independent, in-depth references exist about this. Let alone enough to make it notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Thanthi Group[edit]

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

Advertisement of the company. Lack of significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. GermanKity (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why editors on Wikipedia never check google for more refs before nominating it for deletion!? Rather than improving it with a good faith edit? I searched for this group and found refs like Reuters and there are others as well please check the refs before the deletion James Lunscott (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NCORP criteria. Trakinwiki (talk) 09:48, 30 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chettinad College of Engineering and Technology[edit]

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

Lack of WP:SIGCOV and not establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NSCHOOL GermanKity (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as explained by nominator. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only references in the article is an extremely trivial namedrop and nothing else exists except for a few passing mentions in two articles about a tax raid. None of which accomplishes establishing this places notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arena Animation[edit]

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

Blatant advertisement. References do not show the notability of the subject. unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability,fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG GermanKity (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed this is basically just a quite obviously self-inflating page and doesn't actually meet notability guidelines.--Tautomers_{(T C)} 07:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is an advertorial disguised as a page. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is a blatant advert for a clearly non-notable topic. There really isn't anything else to say about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I strongly believe it should be deleted because reliable sources are week and this article written just for advertisement purpose.TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 09:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Junction, Idaho[edit]

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

A rail crossing originally on the outskirts of Post Falls. Currently two tracks cross, but the topos make it clear why it got this name: originally three lines crossed at this point, like the famous example in Fostoria, Ohio. This one appears to have been less famous, and in any case it was never a community of any kind. Mangoe (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rather obvious case of non-significance. Google maps clearly shows it is simply a small patch imbedded in Post Falls, ID, as the AfD creator stated. I couldn't find anything notable in searching either. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 07:20, 28 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 Portlethen#Education. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Portlethen Primary School[edit]

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

NN primary school that had been a redirect for four years. Recently, prior article was restored with edit summary "restore page blanked without discussion". I see no claim of notability in the article. MB 03:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MB 03:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MB 03:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With Portlethen into the education section, or into Portlethen Academy into a new section ==Feeder schools== if a link can be shown. A lot of work is needed on both those articles.ClemRutter (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge What's referenced into the education section of the Portlethen. I'm totally fine with that, but this school clearly isn't notable enough on it's own to warrant an individual, separate article about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I would support the argument to merge. Generally a primary school is not notable enough to have an entry of its own and I can not see anything in this case that would make this school an exception. However it would be perfectly sensible to have information on it in the appropriate part of the Portlethen article. Dunarc (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Portlethen: The present article is a broth of material about the school's buildings, about other local primary schools and about the feed to the local secondary school. The relevant information is already provided at Portlethen#Education. There is no claim to exceptional notability such as might be determined to override the normal position on articles about primary schools. AllyD (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 03:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sergi García[edit]

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

I think these are Unneeded. These small, two-item disambiguation pages are better solved with Hat-notes, and are becoming rampant and turning Wikipedia into the book of lists. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is no primary topic, therefore, it doesn't make sense to have one or the other at the basename. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't they already disambiguated in their respective article titles? There are only two people here. Entering a search term in Wikipedia is never going to overflow the results field, or produce a lengthy links page. GenQuest ^"scribble" 22:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what would you propose we have at the basename? Elli (talk | contribs) 10:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't have to be a basename. It is pretty easy to distinguish between two already disambiguated article titles without all the extra steps and creation of a page that is easily replaced with hat-notes. There is little benefit derived from going through all that trouble, plus having readers decide between three pages instead of just two as they type the search term(s). BTW, in the United States, the basketball player gets far more hits than the other guy, so that would be a good indicator of a basename if you feel you have to have one. GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page meets the guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be out of order to move Sergi García (basketball) to Sergi García and disambiguate to the other with a hatnote. The priority between the two subjects could change over time though, so perhaps best to just keep this. Geschichte (talk) 14:33, 21 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) 03:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These "small, two-item disambiguation pages" effectively disambiguate where there is no clear primary topic between two names. BD2412 T 06:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This seems acceptable according to my reading of WP:DISAMBIG. Per WP:TWODABS, "If there are multiple topics (even just two) to which a given title might refer, but per the criteria at Is there a primary topic? there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term." Not clear that there's a primary here, so I think this page is fine. Suriname0 (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of generation II Pokémon#Chikorita. ✗plicit 04:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chikorita[edit]

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

Yet another Pokemon of dubious notability. This was one was PRODed but dePRODed by a mass dePRODer. PROD was "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." Reception section is tiny, much shorter even than those of recently redirected articles, and consists only of few passing mentions that fail SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I don't see how this minor Pokemon would be notable. Fails WP:GNG and what little there is of the reception section seems a bit NPOV._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of generation II Pokémon#Chikorita per nom. No significant coverage. Link20XX (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:GNG and WP:POKEMON. The reception section is virtually devoid of meaningful commentary, and much of the rest of the article isn't much more than a laundry list of every appearance its ever made on games and movies. It's wikia material, not Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 03:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree with the above regarding lack of SIGCOV CiphriusKane (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at Adam's Bluff[edit]

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

Working through User:Hog Farm/ACW battle stubs to try to destub the ones that are expandable, I ran into this one that I don't think is notable. The source for this one is just a comprehensive list of battles just states that a skirmish occurred at Adam's Bluff on June 30, 1862. The commanders and result of the battle listed in the article are evidently original research. Searching brings up basically nothing, although this seems to have been probably associated with the White River Expedition. Ed Bearss's article about the campaign mentions Confederate shore forces skirmishing with Union naval vessels at Adam's Bluff on June 19 and an instance of Confederate snipers firing on Union naval vessels on July 4, but nothing on June 30. I just don't see how this one possibly passes WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Talk 01:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 01:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 01:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 01:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dyer's Compendium table of battles by date for Arkansas, p. 673, 3 pages after the citation to the index of battles for Arkansas, shows that the 43rd Indiana Infantry Regiment was the Union unit involved in the Adams Bluff skirmish and lists no casualties for the regiment. This action could only have been a preliminary skirmish to the Battle of Helena in which the 43rd Indiana served a few days later on July 4, 1863. It is not listed in Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. OCLC 68283123. Page 234. It is not discussed in Christ, Mark K. Civil War Arkansas 1863: The Battle for a State. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2010. ISBN 978-0-8061-4087-2. This book has several pages of text about the prelude to the battle in which a few preliminary encounters are mentioned and a 28-page chapter on the battle in which the 43rd Indiana is mentioned several times but says nothing about the action on June 30. This lack of notice of the June 30 skirmish at Adams Bluff by these two sources indicates that the action was not important to the Battle of Helena and not notable enough to have a separate article. In fact, it also seems quite doubtful that any more information about the skirmish can be found. Donner60 (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert: I may have been too careless with the dates for Adam's Bluff and Helena in my comments. I think my conclusion is correct since Mark K. Christ does not mention Adam's Bluff in his book about the Civil War in Arkansas. I will amend the comments as soon as I get it completely straightened out. I now think that Adam's Bluff actually was a skirmish that took place in Samuel Curtis's followup to the Battle of Pea Ridge in the year before the Battle of Helena, but is still not notable. I wanted to add this cautionary note so that the mistake will not have more weight than it should as I finish double checking this. Sorry about that. I was careful about reviewing the Christ book but reading the fine print in Dyer late at night may not have been the best idea especially when the same regiment was involved in both Adam's Bluff and Helena. Donner60 (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert: I checked E.B. Long’s book on the Civil War Day-by-Day to be sure I had checked the correct date for the Adam’s Bluff skirmish. I had. So again, Long does not mention it. I had checked the index as well as the section about the Battle of Helena in the Christ book and Adam’s Bluff is not indexed at any place. Also, Dyer shows no casualties for the 43rd Indiana Infantry Regiment at the skirmish. The mistake was that I connected it as a possible event that took place just before the Battle of Helena in 1863. It wasn’t. But I think the overall analysis and conclusion was correct because that mistake was not a material fact in coming to the conclusion. As usual, Hog Farm's analysis that the skirmish was connected to the White River expedition is correct and I also should have noted that, and the date, more carefully.
- In short, after the Battle of Pea Ridge, March 7-8, 1862, Union Brigadier General Samuel Curtis (soon to be promoted to major general) held his position and reorganized and rested his force under orders from Major General Henry Halleck, who then ordered his force to Memphis. When Confederate Major General Earl Van Dorn withdrew his Army of the West from Arkansas, Halleck thought that Little Rock could be captured and redirected Curtis in April. Curtis had supply difficulties and eventually resorted to foraging. His force was harassed by small Confederate units as well. In the latter half of June, he moved his forces eastward along the White River to try to reach gunboats with supplies and help. The gunboats in turn had been harassed with at least one destroyed and held up by low water. When the Union column reached Clarendon on July 9, the gunboats had gone downriver. Curtis's lack of supplies and logistics problems forced him to give up further operations toward Little Rock. His men reached and occupied Helena on July 12 and began to fortify their position. This is covered in detail in the chapter "Marching through Arkansas" in Shea, William L. and Earl J. Hess. Pea Ridge: Civil War Campaign in the West. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992. ISBN 978-0-8078-4669-8. But the Adam’s Bluff skirmish, which presumably took place in the march along the White River, is not mentioned in that book either. Sorry for the long further explanation but I thought I should clear up the mistake, even though the conclusion is the same. Donner60 (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Donner60's very well reasoned explanation as to why this event to the extent it even happened was not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the exhaustive analysis of sources explained above. It clearly does not meet the GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Space Bee[edit]

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

Non notable band, self promotion Donaldd23 (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet the criteria for WP:BAND or WP:GNG. I agree this page seems more like fan-driven promotion and desiring to appear significant. Kind of impressive this page has been around for 14 years. Searching does not yield anything that would satisfy notability requirements. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 07:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable fails WP:BAND. -Xclusivzik (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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