Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 29	July 01 >

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 There is consensus here that the list article is a reasonable one to keep; as has been correctly pointed out below, individual items on a list need not independently meet WP:N. The notability of the list as a whole was not addressed in the depth I'd like, but I think there's sufficient demonstration of analogous lists to keep it for the moment. The notability of individual prisons has not been demonstrated here.. There is consensus here that the list article is a reasonable one to keep; as has been correctly pointed out below, individual items on a list need not independently meet WP:N. The notability of the list as a whole was not addressed in the depth I'd like, but I think there's sufficient demonstration of analogous lists to keep it for the moment. The notability of individual prisons has not been demonstrated here. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of prisons in Rajasthan[edit]

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

An article with no encyclopedic value and the only sources are used come from the State Government of Rajasthan's website. All this article is nothing but text and has no links or transclusions anywhere. It's very doubtful that these prisons listed will have their own pages created. This is part of an ongoing issue with HariSinghw who is creating articles and templates simply because he can. He argues that there is a legitimate reason to keep them, but never provides any other than that these places or exists or because it does it should be given a page. He has also argued that on another article he has created that's currently subject to an Afd. The template he created for this page is a subject of a Tfd as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the user who created List of prisons in Rajasthan has created similar articles with related subjects. These articles also don't fit general notability guidelines:

--WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I had seconded the PROD that was initially placed on this page, and looked into it further along with having looked into several articles by this user in the past. This does not pass GNG, and indeed is part of a larger pattern. Individuals have been trying to inform him how to improve his creating and citing process and understand wiki guidelines and I'd recommend further encouragement. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 00:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC) Striking --Tautomers_{(T C)} 00:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also I have noticed HariSinghw seems to sign things with the name "I love to be honest" via formatting as opposed to his username. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 00:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the list as a valid redirect target for the jails, which should be redirected, which I hope doesn't confuse the closer. I think HariSinghw doesn't quite understand notability, which is why he took the counsel at ANI and created a long article which I stubbed as there was no evidence of encyclopedic value or notability. I didn't AfD Ambala at the time as I wasn't sure how WP:Articles for deletion/District Jail, Jhajjar was going to close. He's editing in good faith, but I am not sure he has the competence required yet to edit the English Wikipedia. Those issues could be solved if the jails were notable, which they do not appear to be as there is no sourcing with which to improve them. I wouldn't be against deletion, but there could be a usable list to point these to. Agree that this is not currently a usable list, but I think that's an issue that can be solved by editing. Star Mississippi 00:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Per the remarks that Mississippi made, I am revising my vote from delete to keep as that is a valid case for keeping it. The reason for weak is because I think Draftify may be a good secondary option. If there are is only one or zero valid jail articles then there is no point in keeping a list of only one item. Another option might be to merge the list into a more general list since this may be too specific. Either way, Keep for now and include links to wiki articles that are ultimately kept and properly cited. If it proves later down the line to be invalid or worthy of some change then it can be channeled that way. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 00:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I think this AfD would need to be remade? It's also a bundle with 3 other jails. While they are on the list they aren't list themselves, even though those jails would also likely fail and AfD as they are basically the same as all the others made by this user. My comments still stand but I think the procedure with this might be slightly gummed up. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 00:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Central prison, ambala is about 150 years old jail, India was independent on 1947 and has historical value. Many freedom fighters were kept here. Notable topic for wikipedia. I love to be honest (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided any evidence that they were imprisoned and who exactly? You have to support claims with sources which you haven't done with this article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up to wikipedia quality standards. Redirect associated prison articles to the list. Polyamorph (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep this list article, and delete this individual jails articles (all created bypassing AfC). Central Prison, Ambala may be old, both no information has been provided at that article about its history. David notMD (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: At one time there existed Wikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities but it is defunct, with no articles created during its existence. However, for the US and UK, there appears to be existence of lists of prisons, and prisons having individual articles. See for California: List of California state prisons; and for all of UK: List of prisons in the United Kingdom. Regardless of these examples, individual prison articles need to meet minimum standards. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank You Sir an individual prison article is also eligible for the retention of page because these jails are made to keep criminals, under trial prisoners away from the civilized society. It is not a promotion for the purpose showing that this is jail and you may reside here and these articles will have preventive and deterring effect that a state has many jails and these are overcrowded and there is need to do a lot by the police state to control the crime in the society. It is mirror for the policy makers to prevent these crimes in the society. I love to be honest (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Unfortunately none of that has any relation to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please read those and make your arguments based on that. Star Mississippi 03:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject to improvement. There is no general requirement that every item on a list has itself to be notable or have its own article - see WP:LISTS. Lists of prisons are an established thing - see Category:Lists of prisons - and the sourcing will necessarily be based on government information. The individual prison articles should not been bundled with the nomination of the list. As per Users:Star Mississippi and Polyamorph, the list is a valid redirect target for individual prisons which don't support an article. I'm inclined to say that Central Prison, Ambala, has just enough sourcing to be kept as a stub, after Star Mississippi's overhaul (and I think that HariSinghw is correct that because of its age there will be more to be added) and that the others could redirect ~~to the list~~ somewhere, perhaps to their locations (but not to this list, since they're in a different state - which is one more reason why this is a dim nomination bundle). Ingratis (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've added a couple more refs to Central Prison, Ambala (incl the hanging there of Gandhi's assassin). Ingratis (talk) 13:42, 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 merge to The University of Georgia. Daniel (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry[edit]

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

This is a center within The University of Georgia and it does not appear to pass WP:ORG nor WP:GNG as an individual entity. While it does appear in a fair number of articles over time, the vast majority are university news pages and science magazines, and it is only mentioned in passing, usually in the form of the research or people there and is not the subject of coverage. The article is not cited outside of its center page (which is a broken link), and I wasn't able to find good sources to fill the page. It might be better to merge this content into UoG's. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 23:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say first that I have a conflict of interest in that I was a member of the Center for five months in 1990. I agree that the material should be merged into The University of Georgia as a sub-section of the section on research. It's importance clearly merits a mention there and the current article is not too long to be merged as a whole. --Bduke (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The University of Georgia. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG on its own, but worth mentioning in the parent institution's page. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:52, 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anchalpur[edit]

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

This article has been around since 2015, but I have to ask, Why? It purports to deal with a street in Bhairahawa, Nepal, but makes no claim of notability and contains no references. In the first day of its existence, it was tagged for speedy deletion, the (misapplied) tag was replaced with a prod tag by an admin, and the article was deprodded by its creator. In any case, I can find no online evidence that this satisfies WP:GEOROAD. Deor (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability asserted, and I cannot find any reliable sources to support any claim of notability. Appears to be just another street. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Kinu. Appears to be a run-of-the-mill and non-notable subject. — Goszei (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just an ordinary street, with no indication of being notable. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found info that the road actually exists, but nothing more than news of a regional festival [[1]] and an unfortunate petroleum station [[2]]. This wouldn't even work as a redirect to Siddharthanagar, the alternate name of Bhairahawa, since there's zero substantive content that can be sourced. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:23, 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. ✗plicit 00:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Witchcraft[edit]

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

Non-notable erotic film, lacking significant coverage or other indications of notability per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I looked through several sources directly and could not find anything to help this pass NFILM or even GNG. Compared to other erotic films I have seen this has received relatively low coverage. At the critical reception section, it mentions negative reviews from Dr. Gore's Movie Reviews (which is unreliable as it is self-published and hosted on blogspot) and The Video Vacuum (which I could not find). Anonymous 7481 (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of reliable sources coverage of this film. For example it has no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes. Regarding Video Vacuum here it is a blog, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 18:07, 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. ✗plicit 00:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Pets[edit]

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

Non-notable erotic film, lacking significant coverage or other indication of notability per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NFILM. I could not find any coverage for this from some searching. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of reliable sources coverage. For example the film has no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes and does not pass WP:GNG imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 18:07, 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 keep and cleanup. Daniel (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bokani Soko[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Kleinpecan (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kleinpecan (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an interesting one. The article has been around for a few years and for most of that time it has had sources. A week ago these were removed by @Bwalyag:. Until earlier this year the article appeared to be about someone whose notability, as a lawyer, looked doubtful. However a search shows that in the last few years Mr Soko has made a major career change and is now unquestionably notable as a close associate of the Zambian President who is being named in major corruption scandals (see 1, 2 and 3) so I think the recent rewrite and removal of sources is part of a piece of reputation laundering designed to give the subject a ‘clean’ high-ranking Google hit. Mccapra (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but needs a rewrite. Per the sources cited by Mccapra above, it looks like he could be notable, but I would like to see some more in-depth sources on the man himself to demonstrate he meets WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see 1, 2, and 3. Mccapra (talk) 18:38, 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manner Records[edit]

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

Unable to find any in-depth coverage focused on this record label; does not meet WP:NCORP (doesn't even appear to meet WP:GNG, a much lower standard). Not one of the more important indie labels, therefore, WP:NMUSIC does not apply. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Jklamo (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom -Xclusivzik (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nommed; maybe even A7 speedy? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 03:53, 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 redirect to Pennsylvania Hall (Philadelphia)#Monday, May 14, 1838. As noted in my relisting comment: consensus is that we should not have an article about the wedding in addition to the articles about the spouses. Because several people suggest a selective merger, which is not possible after a deletion, redirecting the title to where the event is already covered is a sensible compromise, to allow merging from the history. Sandstein 10:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The abolitionist Weld–Grimké wedding[edit]

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

This event does not appear to be covered in-depth in any reliable sources. Of the four references currently in the article, only one is primarily about the article topic, and it is a WordPress blog post. I don't see anything more than passing mentions on Google Scholar ([3], [4]), and the best I can find elsewhere is this 2-minute video from a local PBS affiliate. Wikipedia does not seem to have many articles on weddings, and most of those that do exist are about royal weddings. Some of this content could be merged into Theodore Weld and Angelina Grimké, but I do not think the available sourcing justifies a standalone article. Rublov (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Theodore Dwight Weld, Angelina Grimké, and Pennsylvania Hall (Philadelphia), accordingly. Any important information can be easily placed into one of those three. The notability of this particular event is intrinsically tied to 1) the couple itself and 2) the building where it took place, so it's more beneficial within those articles than separate. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 18:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am rewriting the article and adding additional documentation. deisenbe (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deisenbe:, you are welcome to continue working on the article while this AfD is in progress. The problem isn't that the article is low quality, though. I found it a well-written and interesting read. The problem is that the article lacks references that demonstrate that the event was notable independent of the notability of the participants, which is why I am proposing taking the content that you have written, which is valuable, and merging it (perhaps trimmed slightly) into the articles on Theodore Weld and Angelina Grimké, where it will probably get more exposure anyway. Rublov (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rublov: I hope you will find that I have addressed this issue. ¶ There is plenty of documentation on the Weld–Grimké relationship and its importance in the birth of women's rights; their love letters have been published. I'm expanding this. While I think you're right that it would get more readers if inserted into the Grimké/Weld articles, I don't think the topic would or could be given its importance there. There is a parallel in a related article, the one on the Grimké sisters, which I personally had nothing to do with. Everything, at least theoretically, could go into the articles on the two sisters (Angelina, Sarah). But the two, as a team, get their own article. And if you can have an article on a team of two sisters, why not about a husband and wife team? But it seems strange, to me at least, to write an article on their relationship, their romance, their partnership. "Wedding" is the traditional place to discuss the bride and groom together, and it was a most unusual wedding, with joint white and black ministers, denounced by the Quakers, of all people. It was capped by the worst case of arson in American history as of that date (except for the British burning the Capitol and the White House during the War of 1812). The grand new venue, in which Angelina was the last speaker, while the windows were being broken, whose inauguration all of these out of town visitors were there to attend, was burned to the ground, and rioters prevented firemen from saving the building. That article I did write, and I'm proud of it. If it hadn't been for that riot and arson there probably would have been more on the wedding itself.

Anyway, I've put Under Construction on it. As you probably know, that is deleted automatically after inactivity, and I'm asking you to postpone any decision and action until I'm done, at which point I will take the Under Construction down. It won't be long. deisenbe (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deisenbe, the normal period for an AfD is seven days, but it may run longer than that depending on participation and whether consensus is clear. But you don't need to improve the article in order to save it from deletion. All you need to do is present a convincing argument that it meets WP:GNG. Rublov (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of expanding it to be "The Grimké–Weld marriage"? deisenbe (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would echo Kncny11's reasoning that the topic, whether narrowly or broadly construed, is intrinsically tied to Weld and Grimké. Page view data shows that Theodore Dwight Weld and Angelina Grimké together received nearly 30x as many views as The abolitionist Weld–Grimké wedding in April 2021. If this article were merged into those pages, the information would be much more visible and useful to our readers. Rublov (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no logical redirect target and any pertinent information can be merged into either of the bride/groom's articles. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorofthewiki, Kncny11, and Rublov: As I am actively working on revising the article, which has more than doubled in length since it was nominated for deletion four days ago, and addressing or trying to address the concerns raised, I am requesting that no other opinions be posted here until I'm done, which will be in a matter of days. I am also requesting that those who already posted reread it after I'm finished. You will know I'm finished when I remove the Under Construction template. deisenbe (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As of today it is 4 times longer. I don't mean to imply that it is therefore better or that the objections have been adequately addressed, just that I'm working on it. deisenbe (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still not convinced that this was a notable event, or that it qualifies for an article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, tentative consensus is that we should not have an article about the wedding in addition to the articles about the spouses. Because several people suggest a selective merger, which is not possible after a deletion, redirecting the title to where the event is already covered (Pennsylvania_Hall (Philadelphia)#Monday, May 14, 1838) might be considered, to allow merging from the history. But more views might be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:34, 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) 20:58, 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. ✗plicit 00:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-liked YouTube comments[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply)} 19:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply)} 19:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply)} 19:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the sources appear to be OR. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not discussed by independent sources at all, barring a single Daily Dot article on the top comment. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 20:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does appear to be original research, and wasn't able to find good sources/support for it. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 00:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't finish that much of the page, and i'm really bad when it comes to sourcing stuff. Can you please help me find some? Pwnda (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously original research. Ajf773 (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is???? The likes of the comments are all accurate, i dont get it?? Like the proof is directly from YouTube itself Pwnda (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pwnda please see WP:Original research. Wikipedia requires reputable, reliable sources that differ from the subject of the article in question. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply)} 17:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pwnda, to expand on what EpicPupper said, there are two issues that have been raised here. The first one is that our guideline for which lists can be included on Wikipedia says that the subject of the list needs to have been discussed as a group in reliable sources. So, for instance, we can have a list article on the tallest buildings in the world, because there have been lots of news articles ranking the tallest buildings or discussing them all together. None of us have been able to find articles like that listing out the most-liked YouTube comments, and until something like that is published, our notability guidelines say this topic doesn't warrant a page. The second, related issue is that, without such news articles, it's possible to source the YouTube comments themselves individually, but not to source the fact that a given comment is the 2nd/3rd/etc. most-liked. To do so just based on your own research, rather than taking data someone else has compiled, is considered synthesis, a disallowed type of original research.

If you can find articles from reputable news outlets ranking the most-liked YouTube comments, or if such articles are published in the future, it will be possible to keep the list, but otherwise there unfortunately isn't a place for it on Wikipedia, and I'd suggest publishing it somewhere else on the internet. Still, thanks for your work on the list—I know it's not fun to have a page you've worked hard on put up for deletion, and I hope it doesn't discourage you from continuing to contribute elsewhere. The List of most-liked YouTube videos page gets thousands of views per day and needs some updating and some additional citations, so that might be one related page to improve if you're interested. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sdkb. Adding on to what Sdkb said, Pwnda, if you want to work on the list on an alternative outlet, I've archived it. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply)} 21:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Pwnda (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely an WP:OR. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If anything is non-notable cruft, this is. JIP | Talk 13:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Wario-Man ^talk 03:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and non-notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. NavjotSR (talk) 07:30, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Rowland[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor of a Welsh town. A quick search in The Times digital archive brings up only one other hit besides the brief death notice (no obituary). Presumably, a local paper would have more coverage, but, nonetheless, consensus has generally been that being a mayor does not grant sufficient notability. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was knighted. This clearly meets the criteria of WP:ANYBIO #1. The consensus that it does is clearly illustrated here; no person with a modern knighthood has ever been deleted at AfD. If the British state considered him notable enough to be knighted in the modern era, when knighthoods are not that common (only about 100 people a year in the 1920s, in a country of many millions), then who are we at Wikipedia to decide he is not notable enough for a project that includes myriad people who would never come close to receiving such a high honour? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has an entry in UK Who's Who https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U216491 Piecesofuk (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per past outcomes. We have tended to keep persons who were CBE. Bearian (talk) 00:36, 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 merge to Granville Elliot , or John Eliot if someone would prefer that Daniel (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Killigrew[edit]

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

Evidently no more than a genealogical entry, but Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. See WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. Surtsicna (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no coverage in reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:BASIC, and her being related to various notable individuals does not confer notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to John_Eliot_(statesman)#Richard_Eliot, George_Elliott_(surgeon), or maybe Granville_Elliott#Family. Suriname0 (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant details to Granville Elliot. Furius (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate target. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minister of State for Middle East and North Africa[edit]

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

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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep, without prejudice to individual renominations. This is an enormous list, and it seems to me that at least some of these positions have probably received substantial coverage. In any event, there are too many differences between the articles to make this a valid bundle: each article ought to be assessed on its own merits. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! I can absolutely sort individual nominations. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per Extraordinary Writ. Far too many to consider all at once, and even the nomination statement makes it clear they are a disperate set (some cite... some don't). I also suspect that if any are found not notable individually that merges and redirection will be appropriate but the targets are going to be different. I strongly recommend spacing out individual nominations over a couple of weeks to avoid overloading AfD participants and allow each article to be fully considered on it's own merits (there is going to be a limited pool of interested editors with subject knowledge). Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Thanks for the feedback! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) Isn't "a summary of the office holder's responsibilities and a list of past incumbents" exactly the type of information that we would expect to be in an encyclopedia? The nominator seems to have the idea that we shouldn't have information that can be found elsewhere. That is a complete reversal of our notability and verifiability rules. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely understand and agree with that point. The two grounds that I am arguing under are WP:NOR and WP:NOTE, sorry for not explaining that clearly enough. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, without prejudice to individual renominations. As per others, I think the merits of the individual articles varies too much to be considered together. Could you re-nominate separately please? Bondegezou (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback - I will do, when I've got a bit of time. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Is it considered ok to just delete this many articles all in one go? Editors have spent many hours editing them so I don't think its very courteous. I have probably spent the most hours creating and editing these pages so this is my comment: 1. These lists can ONLY be found on Wikipedia. I know this because I made many of them. Researching these lists were very difficult, so the idea that the lists can be easily found is just wrong. The government website does not have historic lists of these officeholders and it wasn't easy writing them up. 2. There's clearly things of note in these articles and the links work. The ministerial offices were being searched for, and the original redirects to the department was misleading I thought. And the one example you use, Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, is the only article which has had a name change and has a sentence referring to the government website, so I think it's a bit unfair to single that one out. 3. These articles were made in the style of the Cabinet Ministerial roles, (Secretary of State (United Kingdom)), some of these ministerial offices have even been members of the cabinet; so why are they less notable? The Offices exist just as much as the other ministers. 4. These lists are probably more notable than the civil servant lists in the agencies and departments of the US Federal Government. These articles are in a similar style, with the history of the role, the responsibilities of the office, and the holders of office listed. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Moondragon21. I meant absolutely no disrespect to you or any other editor in making this nomination. To avoid mass deletions, to be courteous and to hear the views of others (to name just three reasons) is why we have a nomination process and why I also started a similar discussion several months ago, but I now understand that these were too many articles to nominate at once. I am going to withdraw this AfD and will think very carefully about what you have said before making a decision to renominate any article. I only singled out Minister of State, Ministry of Justice because it was an article that I have edited and so I know it well. I mentioned that in the linked discussion on the WikiProject, but didn't here. Thank you for replying and I am sorry for any offence caused. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FollowTheTortoise. No worries, thanks for replying. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:23, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai (2010 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage or other indications of notability per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 18:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails both NFILM and GNG. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Give this one the chop. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reviews or any other significant coverage. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 18:07, 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 no consensus. Notabilty seems to rest upon the reliability of Nerdly as a source. I find no consensus regarding this, and therefore no consensus in this deletion discussion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Far From the Apple Tree[edit]

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

Only claim to fame is that it went to a few film festivals - Manchester and Dundee - but this doesn't show WP:NFO or WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited from Groundsell, and as such this Vogue interview does not contribute to notability here. (Same for Daily Express, which is moreover an unreliable tabloid.) Done a BEFORE and not found anything not in the article, other than a source about appearing at the Edinburgh Film Festival (ProQuest document ID 1906937966). — Bilorv (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not meeting any WP:NFILM criterias. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So far I'm leaning towards a weak keep for this one but I keep waffling on this. Eye for Film is generally seen as a RS - Anton Bitel wrote for them for a while - and there's some coverage from places typically seen as RS for the most part. It's just not a really solid keep for me and I'd rather keep plugging away for sourcing and clean up the article before I make any final judgement. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found another review, this one by Nerdly, which is a decent source. Not the strongest possible one but decent enough for RS purposes. I think that there's just enough here to justify a weak keep on my part. I'd like for there to be coverage from more strong mainstream horror/fantasy sources but what's here is fine for the most part. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your research, ReaderofthePack. I think Nerdly is borderline usable, and EyeForFilm too, but these are not enough for me to support "keep". Horrified looks not to pay its contributors, and ModernHorrors is written by "volunteer content creators", so I'm not seeing these as contributing to notability. Does this roughly match your assessment? — Bilorv (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much the gist of it. If I had one really good, strong source it'd be better but right now the sources are all sort of "meh". Enough on the decent side for a weak keep but only just. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Several unreliable sources do not make a topic notable; had it won an award, a notable cast or crew, or achieved something historically significant worth noting these sources might have sufficed. But (at least to my knowledge) as none of those are true for this film this article relies solely on its coverage, and it largely lacks RS. EyeForFilm is the only undisputed reliable source, and while that is certainly good, it is not enough on its own imo. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is enough coverage in reliable sources to just pass WP:GNG such as Nerdly and EyeforFilm, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Atlantic306's rationale. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:49, 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. Consensus is that the topic may not have done or accomplished anything notable, but that the topic is notable per available sources (GNG) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Somerset, Duchess of Beaufort[edit]

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

If this person did anything that makes her pass WP:GNG, i.e. anything but be related to some people, then I do not see it in the article or in the publications that mention her. To me this looks like a genealogical entry. Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. <sarcasm>OK, but she was bridesmaid at the wedding of Prince Albert, Duke of York. How much more notability would you want?</sarcasm> Athel cb (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search reveals tons of secondary source coverage. In particular, two academic articles about her plant cultivation habits: [1], [2]. Suriname0 (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, there are two Mary Somersets who were both Duchess of Beaufort. Suriname0 (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable: obituary published in The Times Piecesofuk (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't find a copy of her obituary on-line, but assuming it was by-lined, I believe that unpaid obituaries in prestigious newspapers are de facto evidence of notability. I'm also surprised that we don't have a page about her daughter-in-law, Caroline Beaufort, another notable noble.[5] pburka (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. An obituary in a major newspaper does not automatically confer notability -- it may be presumed, but if nothing else actually turns up providing SIGCOV then it fails the requirement for multiple such sources. Moreover, the obituary in question does not have a byline (I have Gale access through my library) so its independence is not clear. JoelleJay (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per sources dug up using her titled name. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Striking my keep !vote since I haven't been able to turn up any other SIGCOV yet... JoelleJay (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Independent featured as "visit the life of a notable figure. This week: Caroline Beaufort." There’s enough coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. Generally being a member of the royalty, even minor royalty, makes you notable by birth as evidenced by the sources. VocalIndia (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- VocalIndia, a) one article with SIGCOV is not enough to pass GNG; and b) that article is about Caroline Beaufort, not Mary Somerset. JoelleJay (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a link to a British Newspaper Archive search for the "Duchess of Beaufort" in the 1930s https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results/1930-01-01/1939-12-31?basicsearch=%22duchess%20of%20beaufort%22%20-dowager&phrasesearch=duchess%20of%20beaufort&notsearch=dowager&exactsearch=false&retrievecountrycounts=false Piecesofuk (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that does indicate a lot more coverage than what's in the article. Perhaps "Mary Somerset" just isn't used in the media so it didn't turn up more articles. I will reassess after looking through the newspaper hits. JoelleJay (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the BNA seems like a great resource. I don't have access, but by scanning the excerpts it looks like while most of the mentions are WP:ROTM (openings, benefits, meetings with the Queen and the like, but don't miss the exciting encounter with a riderless horse), several are more in depth. Here's the biosketch provided by one of the more promising of the articles:

The Duchess of Beaufort who, with the Duke, is staying with the King and Queen at Sandringham, is rarely seen in London, preferring a quiet country life at Badminton amongst her horses, dogs, and flowers, and taking personal interest in the rearing of poultry. “Master and Mary,” as the Duke and Duchess are affectionately known to the members of the Beaufort Hunt, are great home lovers, fond of sport and all outdoor life, not very interested in the rush of social gaieties, averse to publicity and having their photographs taken. Occasionally they visit their property in South Wales, traveling usually by train, which stops to pick them up and put them down at Badminton, and merely reserving their compartment. The Duchess, a niece of the Queen mother, dislikes fuss of any kind, and, when visiting South Wales to open a bazaar or perform some other duty for charity, she prefers to take family lunch or tea in a quiet little house staffed with one maid rather to be feted in a mansion and waited upon by butler and footmen.
— Bylined as "from a woman correspondent", "Duchess of Beaufort", https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000038/19370127/135/0005 (Belfast News-Letter - 27 January 1937)

Not much to go on, but certainly a reasonable little bio if more can be found like it. Suriname0 (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per those above, obituary in The Times and other sources (some I have added and am searching for me) which establish WP:SIGCOV. Note for other searching: "Mary Somerset" will not have much about this individual as British duchesses are seldom if ever, referred to merely by the family name. As shown by searching the BNA, media mentions of "Princess Mary of Teck" "Lady Mary Cambridge" and "The Duchess of Beaufort" from the times she held those titles will show more. Richiepip (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Richiepip, the article looks a lot better. However, I'm still concerned about significant coverage: an independent source that goes into detail about Mary. I'm having an immense amount of difficulty finding sustained discussion of her life and actions, and not just passing mentions (e.g. [1]). Since it seems you may have access, do any of the book sources you added have more significant coverage? There may be other sources such as [2] that may have sustained coverage, but I personally don't have access to them. It seems like the most likely sources to have SIGCOV would be a section in one of the books on Queen Elizabeth e.g. Young Elizabeth (Williams), but I can't personally verify that. Suriname0 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An obituary in The Times alone is sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Necrothesp, just a note -- it is not sufficient, there is still the MULTIPLE requirement (which she does seem to meet). JoelleJay (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but this is not true. An obituary in a major national newspaper has always been held to be sufficient for notability at AfD. I don't recall ever seeing anyone with such an obit deleted. There is a very clear consensus, and Wikipedia runs on consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I searched "Duchess of Beaufort" from 1924 to 1975 in the British Periodicals archive (using ProQuest, which I access through my university), and there are indeed many hits, although they are all non-SIGCOV and routine (non-encyclopedic). The deepest coverage was some anecdotes in a short, un-bylined obit in The Field vol. 269, Iss. 6990, Aug 1987: 60. I'm withdrawing my keep !vote now since I share Suriname0's concern about the lack of SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I mean to be honest I'm glad we seem to be keeping the article, since I am almost positive that the detailed coverage exists, most likely in some dense biography of Queen Mary or Elizabeth. She regularly corresponded with the Queen, and lived with her during WWII! Just a shame its so hard to uncover relevant sourcing for her. Suriname0 (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on the sources already in the bio, she was notable. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 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. Daniel (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Playing Father[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage or other indications of notability per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 18:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NFILM. All I found was one review but it looks questionable at best [6] and I thus believe it to be unreliable. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 22:03, 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 00:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Love[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage or other indication of notability per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 18:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 22:18, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Control War[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage or other indications of notability per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 17:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every individual episode of a television documentary series is not automatically notable enough for its own standalone encyclopedia article just because it exists — the notability test requires properly sourced evidence of its significance, such as critical attention and/or significant award nominations. To be fair, this is listed in Draft:Yorkton Film Festival Golden Sheaf Award - Documentary — but even there, the source for it is the Yorkton festival's own self-published PDF, not media coverage about the Yorkton film festival, so that claim isn't enough to make a difference in the absence of better sourcing. Otherwise, I'm certainly able to find verification that this existed — but out of 29 hits in ProQuest, 14 of them are just straight repetitions of a single wire service article, thus combining into one usable source rather than 14, and most of what's left is just glancing namechecks of its existence in "on TV tonight" columns rather than substantive coverage that would help to establish the film's permanent notability. So I can't get this over WP:GNG, and since I haven't been able to find adequate sourcing to compile a complete episode list for Doc Zone the way I have for its successor series CBC Docs POV, I can't suggest redirecting this title to Doc Zone either. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 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 and redirect to Swimming Australia. This is a classic case of WP:UNDUE and while the consensus in this debate isn't numerically huge, considering the BLP implications, not relisting and not soft-deleting. Daniel (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Redirect deleted as, subsequent to this AfD closing, the name of the person has been removed from the target article. Daniel (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Volkers[edit]

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

Per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIMINAL. The subject has not been convicted by a court of law and a judge ordered the charges to be permanently stayed in March 2020 [7]. The subject is not a public figure, and there is no other information that would remain if the crime-related material were to be removed. DanCherek (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - given Volkers was the coach of a number of major Australian swimming stars is there a broader article his name can be redirected to as per WP:ATD? Deus et lex (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps Swimming Australia, but the current inclusion of his name there is also questionable per WP:BLPCRIME: editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured, and if he's removed from that section, he's not in the rest of the article. I checked other articles that mention Volkers, but they are just individual athletes he has coached, his successor, a case prosecutor, and an awards table, so not particularly good redirect targets. DanCherek (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Thanks - I'd be comfortable for a redirect to Swimming Australia but with no merged content to avoid violating WP:BLPCRIME. Deus et lex (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No redirect The only mentions of Scott Volkers at Swimming Australia are for allegations of child sexual abuse, so given the raison d'etre of the nominator that would not be a good choice. Apparently (although not mentioned in his current article), he was the head coach at the Commercial Swimming Club in Brisbane, but he is not mentioned in that article. The allegations are discussed in a long paragraph (probably WP:UNDUE) at the prosecutor's article Margaret Cunneen#Notable cases. In the Samantha Riley article it mentions without citation "She had failed a drug test, and was only exonerated after her coach Scott Volkers admitted to giving her a headache tablet which contained the banned substance." In the Australian Sport Awards article it mentions in a table, his 1995 "Coach of the Year" award. There does not appear to be a viable target for any redirect. Overall, if he is not notable, aside from the allegations, then the article should be deleted; it doesn't seem that such deletion would cause any loss of information, outside of the allegations. Also, per the nominator's (@DanCherek:) rationale, the section Notable cases in the Margaret Cunneen article, and the mentions in the Swimming Australia article should be cleaned up. --Bejnar (talk) 20:57, 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IPOPT[edit]

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

WP:ROTM software product, tagged for improvement since June 2017. Fails WP:GNG Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Both references are primary sources. However, secondary independent sources are available, for example: https://books.google.com.co/books?id=_ZtBDwAAQBAJ (ISBN 9783319583563) and https://books.google.com.co/books?id=Jm4eAQAAIAAJ (ISSN 0077-8923). There are several sources about GAMS and NLP covering the subject. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:46, 18 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) 16:04, 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) 17:13, 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kasia Babis[edit]

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

Article author failed to substantiate WP:N for this page. I tried googling around but the person in question seems to have no notable achievements. In one election six years ago she received below 1000 votes. She also runs a YouTube channel with fewer than 50,000 subscribers. Zero notability, article for deletion. LordParsifal (talk) 16:32, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see a few sources (e.g. this, this and this) that seem like significant coverage. The article was also created by the Polish-speaking sysop Ausir. I would tend to trust them on their gauging of notability here, both for speaking Polish and for being a sysop, who are presumably familiar with WP:N. --- Possibly ☎ 18:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Possibly, and I have added support for WP:CREATIVE notability based on reviews of her recent work as an illustrator/graphic novel artist, i.e. Guantánamo Voices: True Accounts from the World’s Most Infamous Prison and Re:Constitutions. Beccaynr (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ It's her job as an illustrator to make and publish illustrations. Should we feature every illustrator and graphic artist on Wikipedia? HuffPost is not a reliable and reputable source, the two other sources are minor articles in minor local Polish websites that I also think are not reputable sources. And again, bravo for posting an illustration to New Yorker, but that's just her job as an illustrator. Not encyclopedic, not notable. In fact, if you make a web traffic analysis, you'd see that it's her YouTube content that generates the most traffic. But even then, her YouTube channel does not have even 50,000 subscribers, standing at just below 37 thousand. This person is beyond non-notable. As a matter of fact—I am also Polish. LordParsifal (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking delete as this user is also the nominator. You don't get to !vote twice. pburka (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way—it's crucial to inform that per WP:N, trivial mentions do not merit notability. Notability can be expressed through wide public attention, political importance or a variety of orders, awards or titles.

This person has not scored a single veritable achievement. This person's closest approach to notability was being nominated for a municipal literary award, but subsequently failing at acquiring that award and falling out of the process. So as it stands now—zero achievements, zero notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LordParsifal (talk • contribs) 22:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per WP:AFDFORMAT, Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this, and the sources I added about her recent works support her notability per WP:CREATIVE. Beccaynr (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You kind of played yourself—because exactly per WP:CREATIVE she is shown to be non-notable. She does not fit any of the 4 given criteria. Having your work (which you produce as part of your job) reviewed does not fit any of the 4 criteria. Your belief that this gives notability is false. WP:BIO is very clear on what notability is—with emphasis on the word "significant." This person has not attracted any significant attention not just in the form of pure traffic, but also soft attention (reputation, coverage) and hard attention (awards, adaptations etc). There really is just nothing significant there. That's all there is to it. LordParsifal (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologize if I have been unclear. Per WP:CREATIVE#3, she has played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work [has] been the primary subject [...] of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. For example, she contributed art^[1] to Guantánamo Voices: True Accounts from the World’s Most Infamous Prison,^[2]^[3]^[4] which was named one of the The Best Graphic Novels of 2020 by The New York Times,^[5] one of the 2021 Great Graphic Novels for Teens by the Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA),^[6] and awarded the 2021 Lynd Ward Graphic Novel Prize from the Penn State University Libraries.^[7] In addition, she illustrated the Re:Constitutions graphic novel written by Beka Feathers,^[8] and according to Publishers Weekly, "this educational comics guidebook to constitutions takes on a commendable international scope", and "Helped along by Babis’s charming if somewhat overly smiley character drawings, the team goes beyond the basics to tackle more substantial examples (such as how Rwanda’s 2003 constitution required 30% of government decision-making bodies to comprise women) and urgent particulars (“the constitution is only as strong as the people who use it”)," and it is being released in July 2021.^[9] So in addition to the other sources in the article, it appears that her notability is sufficiently supported. Beccaynr (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Acena, TJ (August 26, 2020). "Graphic voices of Guantanamo". Oregon ArtsWatch. Retrieved 1 July 2021.
^ "GUANTANAMO VOICES". Kirkus Reviews. June 12, 2020. Retrieved 30 June 2021.
^ Cannon, Frances (December 22, 2020). "Sarah Mirk's GUANTANAMO VOICES". The Iowa Review. Retrieved 30 June 2021.
^ Sarah, Lakshmi (September 12, 2020). "A New Graphic Novel Makes the Stories of Guantánamo Bay Visible". KQED. Retrieved 30 June 2021.
^ Park, Ed; Chute, Hillary (December 9, 2020). "The Best Graphic Novels of 2020". The New York Times. Retrieved 30 June 2021.,
^ "YALSA names 2021 Great Graphic Novels for Teens". American Library Association. January 6, 2021. Retrieved 30 June 2021.
^ Parkin, JK (May 4, 2021). "'Guantanamo Voices' wins the 2021 Lynd Ward Graphic Novel Prize". Smash Pages. Retrieved 1 July 2021.
^ Breznican, Anthony (March 12, 2019). "First Look: World Citizen Comics aims to create super-powered activists". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 30 June 2021.
^ "RE: Constitutions: Connecting Citizens with the Rules of the Game". Publishers Weekly. June 10, 2021. Retrieved 30 June 2021.

Comment updated with additional sources and information. Beccaynr (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah I understand the criteria correctly, including #3. She does not meet any of the criteria. In #3 it explicitly says played a major role. Did she play a major role? The BOOK was spearheaded by Sarah Mirk who has conducted interviews, compiled all the information and wrote the entire text (besides the introduction which was written by Omar el Akkad). The text is adorned with illustrations by 12 different artists. The book is divided into 14 sections with the first two sections illustrated by one Nomi Kane (who does not have a Wikipedia page) and the last section being a collection of art made by a Guantanamo prisoner. All other artists illustrated one section each. One other illustrator that got highlighted by the Brooklyn Public Library (here: https://www.bklynlibrary.org/item?b=12359307) is Gerardo Alba. Also no Wikipedia page. Actually, all illustrators besides, who woulda thunk—Kasia Babis—have got no Wikipedia page of their own. Here we come to the conclusion—the major role was played only by Sarah Mirk, while this person called Kasia Babis has no business being featured on Wikipedia. All the illustrators were commissioned decorators and neither one of them in particular propelled the book to a recognizable status. Given the way things are, Kasia Babis (alongside other illustrators) merely deserves a passing mention on the Wikipedia page of the book, and not an entirely standalone article of her own. Oh wait, the book doesn't have a Wikipedia article of its own either. Only Sarah Mirk does.

Anyway. I hope this concludes the topic and closes speculation whether the person in question fits any criterium or not. Last but not least: there are plenty of artists in this world, many of whom have illustrated very important works. But on Wikipedia, illustrators tend to be featured only when their work is featured in very important pieces of culture, and when it's extraordinarily recognized as valuable and indispensable—like for example Steele Savage of Edith Hamilton's "Mythology" fame. And not some second-rate illustrator of second-rate books. LordParsifal (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the first deletion nomination was kept per these sources, none of which have been mentioned here or used in the article: The Post Italiano, The Canary, Tanzania's Daily News, Bustle, Metro Argento Surfer (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also The Nation, which lists her as a distinguished cartoonist of her generation. It's a passing mention, but it's still something. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, the first deletion nomination was conducted inadequately on a technical level. Trivial mentions do not merit notability, per WP:BIO a person is notable if there is anything, even one thing, extraordinary or significant about the person. This extraordinariness or significance Wikipedia came to quantify as any sort of widespread public attention or, more solidly, accolades, prizes, awards, titles. This person failed to acquire even a municipal award. She is beyond non-notable. I do not understand why there is still any discussion. She also doesn't meet any of the precise criteria laid out in WP:BIO more precisely WP:CREATIVE LordParsifal (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think everyone here is aware of your opinion. You don't need to WP:BLUDGEON every person who comments. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contrary to the claims above, WP:BIO does not require "anything, even one thing, extraordinary or significant about the person." Instead, a person is notable if they've been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Babis clearly has been. pburka (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She has not been the subject of significant coverage. Trivial mentions do not count as notability. Neither do mentions in a few minor articles with 0 comments and shares. I would be pleased if you shared me just one criterium from WP:BIO or WP:N that she meets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordParsifal (talk • contribs) 15:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and Argento Surfer has also identified additional sources with WP:SECONDARY commentary, such as The Nation, noted above, and articles including Bustle and Metro, which are entirely focused on her work. Beccaynr (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BASIC indeed—trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. The footnote given is also a useful guideline. Additionally, the sources given do not meet the criteria set by WP:GNG. These articles neither discuss the person of Kasia Babis in depth, nor do they discuss her at all, they are just pop-magazine content dumps and as such they're trivial. I would be really bewildered if this article was left to stay here. LordParsifal (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a typical example of why WP:BLUDGEONing is counter-productive: "While they may have some very valid points, they get lost due to the dominant behavior and others are less likely to consider their viewpoints because of their behavior." pburka (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep as has been stated by numerous users here, there is coverage in many sources, more than enough in this discussion alone to warrant notably—blindlynx (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep meets GNG per the sources noted in this discussion. Theredproject (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep coverage in multiple reliable sources, as listed here, meets WP:GNG Niftysquirrel (talk) 14:38, 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. Daniel (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Ware[edit]

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

Article has failed to remedy situation regarding the need for additional citations, which thus effectively causes it to fail WP:BIO which requires that articles are covered by additional sources than a primary source.GUtt01 (talk) 15:55, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, due to the addition of multiple independent and reliable sources focused on her and her career. Beccaynr (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. If you have a problem with the sourcing, then improve the article. Theredproject (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have tended to keep a win/place/show for the biggest TV talent shows (American Idol, America's Got Talent, Britain's Got Talent). Bearian (talk) 00:43, 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. Daniel (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Trachta[edit]

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

Questionable if they meet the basic criteria in WP:BIO - there's a lack of context and further details on this person, and the only notability covered in the article (as a stub) is on their appearance on America's Got Talent. Since there doesn't appear to have been an effort to expand beyond this, it raises the question about the notability of the subject for a biographical article. GUtt01 (talk) 15:46, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as he had 400 + episodes over eight years as a major character on The Bold and the Beautiful, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That, in my opinion, is a truly weak reason for keeping the article - if this is the case, why is it not detailed considerably in the article? For a stub, it's become quite stale... GUtt01 (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article is in poor shape currently, it doesn't necessarily mean the subject isn't notable. He meets the GNG at least for plenty of non-trivial newspaper coverage of his soap opera roles, stage roles, music career in Europe and work as an impressionist. A sampling of those findable via google search: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Plus there are more behind paywalls on newspapers.com and newsbank. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the former Thorne Forrester on B&B, Trachta got significant coverage in old soap opera magazines that are not readily available in the digital age. This is a clear case where sources exist, even if they're very hard to find. Gildir (talk) 06:29, 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. ✗plicit 01:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Gifted High[edit]

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

I cannot find any independent sources that cover the subject. In fact, I cannot find any sources that cover it apart from the Facebook links provided in the article. As an exception to the A7 speedy deletion criterion is educational institutions and I do not feel that this possible hoax is sufficiently blatant for speedy deletion, here we are (I have declined to use proposed deletion because it is a newly-created article and thus would expect opposition to the deletion). There is zero indication that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the subject-specific notability guideline for organisations, and I cannot find evidence that it is an independently-accredited degree-awarding institution. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In no way is this at all notable. Either in relation to WP:GNG or WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – appears to have been made up by the author, and in any event would fail any applicable notability guideline due to the dearth of reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:58, 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 merge to Gideon's Daughter. Daniel (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Papa (song)[edit]

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

Song is not notable, per WP:NSONG. Article should be merged to Gideon's Daughter if need be. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 14:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gideon's Daughter. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:52, 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) 21:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Apocalypse[edit]

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage or other indications of notability per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 14:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NFILM and probably GNG. All I found were database entries and similar unreliable sources. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The author may be unfamiliar with notability criteria, please contact that user ang give a chance to improve the article. Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Original editor has not contributed to Wiki since 2018 and has never added onto this article since creation. Either way, the film has not indication of notability after multiple searches. BOVINEBOY2008 15:02, 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. ✗plicit 03:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Vulpis[edit]

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

Non-notable singer/songwriter/producer. There is no significant independent coverage to be found, nor other evidence of passing WP:MUSICBIO/WP:ANYBIO. Article is unsourced and promotional in tone.

This page used to redirect to David Dobrik, but Vulpis only gets a passing mention there that doesn't provide any information about him. I'd prefer deletion over restoring the redirect. Lennart97 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article's creator has only ever worked on this article so there may be a personal connection or conflict of interest. Also, I agree with the nominator on the problem with the previous redirect. As for Mr. Vulpis, he is a longtime behind-the-scenes guy with a lot of credits but I can find nothing beyond basic listings in the works of others, and he does not inherit notability from them. The lengthy discography in the article appears to be a list of other people's works in which Vulpis made contributions as a songwriter, producer, or backup musician, so that really stretches Wikipedia's definition of a "Discography". Must conclude that this article is an attempted promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Joe Vulpis is a person and is it wiki media's standard to have information on the actual person - the redirect page is not Joe Vulpis. It is redirected to another person. Mr. Joe Vulpis has a producer -produced songs that charted with current works and collaborations also on Wikipedia. in addition, the page is still being added with more content. more works produced that charted. More Radio charts. This page is still being updated. thank you. Special:Contributions/M1321

Delete - purely promotional article. Article creator might be a case of WP:UPE, at the very least a huge WP:COI issue. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:BLP. If you remove the content sourced by PR and fluff, there's nothing left. Bearian (talk) 00:45, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trio AB[edit]

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

Tagged since 2014 for failing WP:CORP and not citing any sources. A search did not bring up any significant coverage – in fact, I couldn't find anything about the company, and even the website link in the article gives an error. The Note in the article states that it was acquired by Teligent, which is a redlink but might refer to Teligent Telecom. In any case, this article here should be deleted. LordPeterII (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. LordPeterII (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. LordPeterII (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 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 no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MacBreak[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG. It appears that all the references are primary sources, and I'm unable to find any reliable secondary sources using Google News. The article was previously nominated for deletion in 2011 (here), but the discussion ended with no consensus. It could perhaps be merged with one of the hosts' articles, but the podcast is already mentioned in each article with the exception of Leo Laporte. I'm not sure there is much to merge into those articles anyway considering there aren't any useful sources. The podcast doesn't appear to be mentioned on TWiT.tv and might deserve a short mention. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major hosts like Leo Laporte, iJustine and Andy Ihnatko. As I JethroBT noted in the first AfD, this is a commonly referenced outlet in the tech journalism industry (zdnet, cnet, Wired, etc) [8][9][10] I'll also point out that the nom in the first AfD played shenanigans by actually !voting twice in their own AfD and were the only "delete" votes, drawing it to an inappropriate "no consensus" close. Oakshade (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oakshade: None of the sources you've listed above actually discuss what Macbreak is or present any useful information about it. Most of these barely mention the podcast. For instance, this article only mentions the podcast in a list of other podcasts inside of parentheses as an afterthought of someone being interviewed. Most of these sources also mention Macbreak in relation to one of the hosts, which seems to indicate that the source is much more concerned with the hosts as subjects than the podcast itself. The CNET articles are all written by the same person who appears to have been on the podcast on at least four separate occasions and on those occasions wrote the one to two sentence articles that you've cited here, here, here, and here as well as an article where he only mentions macbreak because the podcast responded to him here. I would say that none of these CNET articles are "independent of the subject," but even if they are still considered independent I wouldn't consider a few one sentence articles grounds for a stand-alone article. Even the Wired articles lack any useful information and one of them (here) is not much longer than the CNET announcements. As far as I can tell these sources don't meet WP:GNG because they do not "address the topic directly and in detail" and there are no sources that have "more than a trivial mention" of the podcast itself. I would also like to note that it doesn't matter if the hosts are notable or not because the deletion discussion is on the subject of the podcast not the people. I also think that whether or not the previous deletion discussion was fair or not is irrelevant to the current discussion. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I mentioned the inappropriate "no consensus" close of the previous discussion is because you brought it up in your deletion rationale. Thanks for the other info. Oakshade (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the previous nomination to demonstrate that I was complying with guidelines 4 and 5 under WP:BEFORE and to provide context for this AfD. I think a decade is sufficient time between AfDs and I do not feel that my concerns have previously been addressed in adaquete detail. TipsyElephant (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was recently introduced to the "notability fallacies" and I believe the previous arguments to keep the page fall under these fallacies. Saying that the hosts are notable is an argument that the podcast should WP:INHERIT notability. Referencing searches on various outlets is a mix of WP:GHITS or perhaps WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:TRIVCOV. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've already made these arguments. Let other editors weigh in and see if you've built a consensus to delete this article.Oakshade (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs some clean-up by removing unnecessary parts and primary sources like Twit.tv. Other than that, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated by Oakshade and in the previous AfD. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: would you mind linking to one or two of the sources you believe demonstrate notability? As far as I can tell the only source from the previous AfD that isn't a permanently dead link is this one, which dedicates less than a dozen words to the topic of MacBreak. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:41, 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. ✗plicit 13:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Perfect Student[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage or other evidence of notability as described at WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I (perhaps embarrassingly) spent nearly forty minutes looking for sources for this film because the title is really generic and I wanted to make sure I did not miss anything … but all I found were databases entries and blogs (which are unreliable sources), indicating that this fails NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is way below the level we need to show that a film is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:47, 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. ✗plicit 13:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Santa (2013 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage (sources are just mentions that is being shown) per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 11:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only citations are TV showtime listings which does not help it pass NFILM or even GNG. (and they are only passing mentions at that). Anonymous 7481 (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search came up with nothing but passing mentions. The only source that significantly covered this film at all was an unreliable source (Fandom Wiki). Fails WP:NFILM.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 13:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial coverage. When our article is basically a verbatim quote from an add for the film, there is no real reason to have it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 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. Sandstein 08:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Phúc Bửu Chánh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page has been deleted twice from Vietnamese Wikipedia. The only relevant RS that I have access to is a story in the Cornell Daily Sun. The subject apparently gave a speech to some Cornell students -- and the reporter accepted what he had to say at face value. The Nguyen Phuc genealogy table at Royal Ark doesn't give anyone of this name, so he may not be a royal at all. He has nonetheless named himself regent on his website, because, you know, why not? This site is full of self-promotional claims. The most amusing one is that he is preparing "international imperial expediting action forces." So be careful out there. 99to99 (talk) 06:49, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article seems to have been created as a kind of warning about an imposter, which is very public-spirited, but I can’t find any reliable independent sources discussing him so he doesn’t appear to be a notable imposter. Mccapra (talk) 03:36, 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misha Keylin[edit]

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

Potentially fails to meet notability guidelines. In looking for independent coverage I found one Grammy nomination, as part of the group Hermitage Piano Trio and an interview from Violinist.com. All references in the article are to primary sources.

The article itself has been tagged as being promotional in tone since February 2010 and having notability concerns since October 2017.

If there is notability here, it seems to reside with Hermitage Piano Trio, and should be in a separate article. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly Keylin is not notable as an individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator on how this musician could be mentioned in an article for Hermitage Piano Trio if they had one. The article says that he won "awards" from forums like New York Times, but those were actually just brief mentions in reviews: [11], [12]. The CDs mentioned were also not his own, but ensemble pieces in which he was one participant. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:44, 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. ✗plicit 03:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Prakash(sadar bazar)[edit]

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

Non notable politician. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Can't find any articles in significant coverage either. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a politician has been twice unsuccessful in Assembly elections, but who recently served a one-year rotational term as local council mayor ("The mayors are elected for five single-year terms on a rotation basis. The first year is reserved for women, the second for candidates in the open category, the third for scheduled caste category, and the remaining two also for the open category." Indian Express). While there is some coverage of in-party manoeuvring involving the subject [13], I don't see these or his council or party positions as sufficient to demonstrate attained notability by WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 12:18, 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 with the caveat that this concerns this article, and not necessarily the subject. One section looks like a CV resume while another section is written in first person. As such, the article, even with the improvements that removed unsourced material, there is a clear policy violation of WP:NOT (in particular WP:PROMOTION) that mandates deletion at this point.

A recreation on the same subject that addresses those concerns is not prohibited and so will not trigger the WP:G4 speedy deletion criterion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Al Sabban[edit]

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

Advertising for her cinema school. DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Eligible for speedy deletion per criteria G11. Seem pl ez 07:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there’s also some COI here. From the text “..after the conference, I submitted the project…”. Mccapra (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Okay, the article's a mess, but please note it's a pretty much word for word translation from the Arabic. She won the Egyptian State Award for Excellence in the Arts (see a squillion media mentions here - you'll need Google translate) - a major award - and is notable in Arabic media before that, with many, many pieces published about her and which reference her or which quote her. She's notable in Egypt/the Arab world. This needs cleanup, not deletion. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

promotionalism beyond the point where it is easily fixable is a perfectly good reason to delete an article, regardless of notability . Actually, it's an even better reason--NOTADVERTISING is policy, and WP:N only a guideline with variable interpretation. I hesitated in nominating ths because I too think she might posibly be notable, but I know this is totally beyond my ability to fix, or (because of the language of the sources) to rewrite, If anyone, such as Alexandermcnabb thinks they can write a decent article, they should do so. But what this needs is WP:TNT DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed large unsourced sections. Also they were about school and ideas, not about the person. With what's there now, it is still poorly written, but at least the bad parts are removed.Peter303x (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve it. Keep based on Egyptian State Award for Excellence in the Arts. I removed large unsourced sections. Also they were about school and ideas, not about the person.Peter303x (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree that TNT is what's needed here. Currently it's irretrievably promotional, and the sources do not give me confidence that this can be fixed except possibly by paving over it and starting from scratch. Reyk _YO! 09:23, 14 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 redirect to List of serving general and flag officers of the Singapore Armed Forces#Singapore Army. Between delete and redirect below, clear consensus not to retain the article, so going with the redirect option per ATD. Daniel (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Yi-Jin[edit]

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

May not pass WP:GNG. All sources are passing references of the subject, and not about the subject himself. Brigadier-General is the most junior general officer rank of the SAF, 2 ranks below the current highest rank available in the force, and though small in numbers, but there are many of them. Awards listed in the Education section are academic awards, which would have been awarded to any outstanding student in the college. Awards and decorations section: PAM, SAF Long Service awards are given if they are in a command position or in the force long enough. The rest are typical badges given for completing respective vocational courses. – robertsky (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Redirect to newly created list List of serving general and flag officers of the Singapore Armed Forces possible also. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep arguable whether he has SIGCOV in multiple RS, but as a General commanding a Division I think notability is satisfied. Mztourist (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Mztourist, one cannot presume notability just because one leads a division, especially for a country which does not see much of military activity despite its sizeable forces due to peacetime. Most of the divisions in Singapore are made up of reservists. Singaporean division commanders don't get mentioned in WP:RS most of the time about themselves unless they subsequently make a name in an unrelated industry/field. If it is just one division, and a redirect to the division page (if there is in the first place) should suffice. There is no further bio on his military career to substantiate the need of a separate article. – robertsky (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote stands. regards Mztourist (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Per Mztourist arguable whether he has SIGCOV in multiple RS but seems enough to qualify for GNG. Jaysonsands (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the references, primary source, standard reporting of board member changes, article is talking about the SAF task force and as the commander giving a routine interview, graduation report of what academic awards he achieved and a listing of award receipients. I do not see any SIGCOV about him. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing just about sufficient for WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Fails WP:SIGCOV as he is not the main subject of the sources.4meter4 (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 14:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the policy wrong. I was just about to go full delete, but read #2 in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#Units and formations which says that commanders of divisions are inherently notable, per established policy. While I agree with the nom, I don't think you can selectively interpret the guideline by referencing the admittedly low level of action within the Singaporean military. Perhaps start a discussion on the policy talk page and use this as a test case, and then revisit. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Timtempleton: the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#Units and formations is about the notability of the military unit/division, not commanders. Military BLPs are now subjected to WP:BIO since WP:NSOLDIER is deprecated. – robertsky (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Use of a project's notability standards which do not have community consensus behind them (are not a recognized WP:SNG) carry less weight when judging consensus. Relisting so those who advanced such an argument may instead use other guidelines/policies to support their position.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of serving general and flag officers of the Singapore Armed Forces#Singapore Army since he's listed there and his name is a plausible search term. Coverage in reliable sources appears to be merely passing and insufficient to support a standalone article, i.e. WP:GNG is not met. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of serving general and flag officers of the Singapore Armed Forces#Singapore Army per KN2731. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:55, 13 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 to delete, after extended time for discussion. Some promising sources are noted to have been identified. BD2412 T 05:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brown (chef)[edit]

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

Not an obviously notable chef. A search for sources reveals gossip about marital separation in The Sun and the Daily Mail, which has also been a recent source of disruption in the article. In any case, I think the BLP problems are severe enough that we should just get rid of this article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or have any WP:SIGCOV from RS. – DarkGlow • 15:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brown won a Michelin star, he is the current GQ chef of the year for the UK, he is listed as one of the Great British Chefs and his cooking is widely praised. He is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but to me those sources suggest we should re-appropriate the article to Cornerstone (restaurant) and make it about the restaurant instead. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a possibility, but the Great British Chefs article has seven solid paragraphs about his career before he started Cornerstone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom NW1223 | Howl at me 21:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brown is a known TV chef, appearing in the BBC's 'Saturday Kitchen', and also - according to this interview in The Times, Channel 4's 'Sunday Brunch'. According to the Evening Standard he's a judge for 'The Great British Menu', not a contestant. I've personally never heard of him, but those three get him past WP:GNG as far as I can see. And you can chuck in his piece in the Financial Times on Mexican food and his 2018 Observer Food Award just to seal it off. If there's a case for deletion on account of the BLP problems to be made (I can't see how), I have no objection to make - but for notability, he's good. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This source shows significant coverage in addition to the others mentioned above, and confirms his role as a judge on The Great British Menu. All together it's enough to to pass WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lesliechin1 (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or have any WP:SIGCOV from RS. Article also written by subject or for the subject by family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.224.20 (talk • contribs)
Delete Not a notable person. Tens of thousands of other people should be on Wikipedia if this is the standard we are setting for noteworthy individuals

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.215.224.30 (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Cullen328's sources. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:02, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Railroaders Association[edit]

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

Fails our guidelines on the notability of organizations. While I appreciate the article creator's attempts to remedy that, all references appear to be trivial mentions and/or not independent of the organization. My WP:BEFORE searches also have not identified any significant coverage in reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a newspaper search reveals significant coverage focusing on this organisation, I've added three newspaper sources. NemesisAT (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just local press coverage. Per WP:AUD, "attention solely from local media...is not an indication of notability." WP:NGO also notes that local organizations like this one are not notable unless they have received coverage from "outside the organization's local area". This group doesn't appear to have attracted any attention from sources outside the north New Jersey area. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG: notable as a volunteer organisation that takes up charitable activities for children. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've not looked at what state the article was in when nominated, but now it's well sourced and clearly meets the GNG. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only gets local coverage. Doesn't qualify for WP:GNG for me. Missvain (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As an organization, it must overcome the WP:AUD requirement. The sourcing here is exclusively local.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment, Thank you all for the time taken to view my 1st Wiki. Notability by Wiki standard is near impossible to achieve nationally as in the rail industry the 'takers' outnumber the 'givers' by 99 to 1 or more. FullScale4Me (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have added a New York newspaper source that is regional covering the organization's interstate steam operations, to meet WP:AUD. Missvain and Rusf10 asked to second look for WP:HEY. JGHowes ^talk 22:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A single-sentence trivial statement that something was "sponsored in conjunction with New Jersey Transit and the Volunteer Railroaders Association..." doesn't move the needle for me. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its both trivial and still local because New York is local.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - A two-page, 6-column illustrated article in a tri-state region newspaper focused on the interstate excursions this organization co-sponsored for three years with NJ Transit, the state-owned public transportation system that serves New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, is trivial and local? Wow. JGHowes ^talk 17:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - "the state-owned public transportation system that serves New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania" (emphasis mine)--Rusf10 (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, could you clarify what point you're trying to make with this comment? Thanks NemesisAT (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I thought it was clear, but NJ Transit operates trains in Rockland County, NY which is part of the coverage area of the newspaper.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would tend to agree that regional press coverage isn't local. But it still seems clear to me that this is trivial: as WP:ORGDEPTH notes, "sources that describe only a specific topic related to the organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization." The New York article provides nothing but a name-check of the organization itself, so it isn't sigcov. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per HEY and the sources found by JGHowes. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 11:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as many editors have stepped forward and made a huge improvement to existing section and added new ones.FullScale4Me (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @FullScale4Me: – you already !voted. Could you change the second "keep" to "comment" or something like that? Cheers. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (They've now changed their previous post of June 10 from "Keep" to "Comment") - JGHowes 19:12, 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. Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gabé Hirschowitz[edit]

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

Promo/vanity piece on a non-notable businessperson (I think?), borderline speediable, but maybe the 2016 award counts as a claim to fame. The sources cited are all non-RS interviews, and a search finds nothing better. (I did also search for 'Gabé Hirsch', which this IMDb entry suggests may be the same person, but still found naught.) Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I couldn't find a single reliable source via a ProQuest database search of Australian and NZ newspapers (broader and deeper than Google). Via Google, I found the same 4 magazine articles currently included on the page, and of them, this and this do not meet IRS in my view-- the magazine publishers are seeking a distributor and have only published 8 issues. The other 2 sources are questionable but arguably enough to support more reliable sources if some could be found. Cabrils (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 01:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. The President's Volunteer Service Award is achieved by logging 100 hours of community service in a year, so it is not significant in establishing notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:52, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CKHSS Cheppad[edit]

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

Non-notable school, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Only source I can find is their own Facebook page, no secondary sources at all. ninety:one 10:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ninety:one 10:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ninety:one 10:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Pipsally (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a horribly written, clearly non-notable article. Such articles should really be speedy deletable. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All those suggestions are 'out of scope'. This is what a 'stub' looks like. It is here so we can decide if reliable sources could be found, by a Wikipedian with more experience than the stub creator. Look to WP:ORG as a reason to delete.ClemRutter (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is something not being notable out of scope? I have more experience then the stub creator and couldn't find any references that work. Your free to provide some if they are out there instead of just chiding other people for not being able to find any. Adamant1 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to expand your argument. It is a bit short... Geschichte (talk) 06:36, 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 delete. ✗plicit 13:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hazardous powders testing kit[edit]

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

Unnoteworthy scientific commercial product that entirely fails WP:GNG and any other guideline. I did an WP:BEFORE just to be safe and nothing that would satisfy notability came up. No citations in article, there's never been any citations in the article over the 16 years this has been rotting away in a dusty corner, cobwebs and all. Kind of amazed really. As cut and dry as you can get.

I was going to do this as a WP:PROD but apparently it went up for a very old VfD in 2005, so it's not eligible for a PROD. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 08:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see what makes this testing kit by 2020Gene notable. I can't find sources supporting notability.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I could find sufficient evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 17:01, 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. ✗plicit 13:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Myopia (film)[edit]

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

Article about a movie with no reliable sources. A check of potential sources shows it does not meet our general notability guidelines. It did win an award at the Vues d'Afrique film festival [14], but this does not meet the "major award" criteria of WP:NFILM and it does not appear to meet any of the other criteria either. Laplorfill (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Laplorfill (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable film awards are not enough to satisfy NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article had been PROD'd and moved to Draft space but recreated in main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 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.

https://www.madridmetropolitan.com/what-is-the-beckham-law-guide-to-expat-tax-in-spain/

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) TheChronium 10:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beckham law[edit]

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

I think that the article is not notable enough for having own article per WP:GNG, the article is heavily uncited and I'm also unable to see reliable citations for notability in the internet, because most of them are generally blog texts. Ahmetlii (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Before shows up a lot of promotional copy from legal and finance service providers, but nothing by way of reliable sources Dexxtrall (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is in poor shape but I'm finding a lot coverage searching for "ley Beckham" in Spanish-language publications, for example: [15] (Expansión), [16] (Cinco Días), [17] (ABC), [18] (Diario AS), [19] (El País). A similar law passed by the Italian senate in 2019 has also received coverage: [20] [21] (Diario AS). Aranya (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with Aranya that searching for "ley Beckham" brings up multiple in-depth results, e.g. this recent piece in El Confidencial.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:28, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) TheChronium 10:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

College Football Risk[edit]

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

I think this fails WP:GNG - even though there are several sources, most are either primary or fan-run blogs. It looks like there's two non-blog articles which discuss the game (MSN and Fort Worth Star-Telegram) the MSN article simply picked up a Bleacher Report blog post here. The Fort Worth article is also relatively brief. Web searches brought up no additional reliable, secondary, significant coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 05:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 05:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 05:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's silly, but WP:PAULTHINKSITSSILLY is not a reason to delete. It does, strangely enough, pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With which sources? SportingFlyer T·C 17:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The feature article in the Fort Worth Star Telegram works for me, the MSN article appears to now be a busted link but I can extend some good faith on that from here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just checking they weren't additional sources to the ones I mentioned - the MSN one is still a fan blog so GNG isn't met. I also get the sense this article's better off on a different wiki. SportingFlyer T·C 21:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic has received significant coverage in a reliable source (namely, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram). Therefore, it satisfies the minimum requirements for notability. Mlb96 (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability requirements specifically require multiple sources. One seven-sentence article isn't enough to pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Curious--how many sentences are the minimum?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? No they don't. The notability guidelines specifically state that "there is no fixed number of sources required" and that multiple sources is merely an expectation, not a requirement. Mlb96 (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily saying there is a minimum, I just don't know how you can write a reliable encyclopaedia article off the back of one seven-sentence article. The "a single source is okay" argument usually only works for exceptional cases (historical bios, etc.) - common sense dictates this is not one of those cases. SportingFlyer T·C 18:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I count 13 sentences in the Fort Worth article, not 7.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:37, 25 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) 05:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As it passed all the criteria.(Fade258 (talk) 16:25, 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. (non-admin closure) TheChronium 10:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cache, Idaho[edit]

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

I'm having a great deal of trouble getting anything substantial about this, starting from the problem that the GNIS coordinates do not agree with the topos, but instead point to a spot in a field north and west of the topo location. The latter spot shows up on topos as a couple of building clusters which on aerials are shown to be a couple of farmsteads and which seem to have since been replaced with groups of houses. The old UP grade runs a bit to the east but I could not find evidence that this was a rail spot; I did find one reference to an LDS ward by this name but couldn't identify it with any particular structure here. I get a ton of juxtaposition false hits due to Cache County in Utah, and there's also a couple of geographical features which don't seem to have to do with this spot, so it's entirely possible I missed something, but I couldn't find anything that identified this as a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment - Seems to be a recognized place. [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. These are the most casual mentions of casual mentions, but it appears that it was a prominent enough settlement that people would say "I'm from Cache, Idaho". 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly a very obscure place, but I think it narrowly passes WP:GEOLAND for being recognized and populated (the USGS ref). In combination with it being mentioned as a birthplace in some books and the newspaper snippets @78.26 procured, I believe it is worth keeping. But I do not understand the issue with the coordinate mismatch – what are you referring to here with "topo" @Mangoe? --LordPeterII (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have long since determined that GNIS doesn't constitute legal recognition, nor is it reliable about the character of a place; see WP:GNIS for more information. I am puzzled by the population claims, and I have not got an idea where Rand McNally got the figures from. If someone knows a straightforward way to get figures by town out of old censuses, I'd be delighted to know. "Topo" is short for "topographic map", the USGS versions of which are the usual though not universal source of GNIS information. Small differences in the location of a label or common, but substantial shifts such as is the case here are rare, and tend to indicate some sort of mapping error. Last, I don't put too much stock into passing references that people are "from" somewhere. Such references do not characterize the place, and they are often inaccurate. When I was a kid, I would say to non-locals that I was "from" Laurel, MD, but I never lived in the city itself; even now, the post office claims that I am in a city which it actually takes me some twenty minutes to reach. Saying that Cache is an "unincorporated community" is essentially an admission that we don't know what it was, because the actual GNIS term is "populated place", and it covers lots of things besides towns. Mangoe (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of post office and the newspaper clippings indicate that this is more than just a railroad post office, and the post office gives a form of legal recognition. I hear what you're saying about Laurel. On the other hand, it rather indicates that Laurel is indeed a populated community (not a subdivision, not a watering hole for cattle, etc.), even if it is unhelpful in defining the community. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: Good to know, I wasn't aware of the issues with GNIS for small places. I'm no longer sure if it should be kept as a separate article then, but I also feel like the mentions of the post office and such should not simply be discarded. Is there a way to maybe merge this into the closest nearby locality, in this case probably Tetonia? I'm not aware of what the policy is here. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:46, 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) 05:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per LordPeterII, and the fact that I was able to find mention of Cache on page 188 of Davis' 1909 Encyclopedia: they list Cache as a town and give a population of 100 in 1909. I have added this info. WP:GEOLAND is thus met: multiple sources agree this was a populated place, a community. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:27, 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. BD2412 T 04:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Hesham[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep: Hesham is a member of the first BAL championship team ever. --H-Hurry (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Hesham Hussein has played for the Egypt national team, also at FIBA AfroCan 2019. --H-Hurry (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— Duplicate vote: H-Hurry (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.—Bagumba (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets NBASKETBALL as he was on the Egyptian national team. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, I don't think we're looking at the same NBASKETBALL.. JTtheOG (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The text of WP:NBASKETBALL does not afford notability to players on national-level basketball teams, so keep rationales relying on it are unconvincing. Relisting to give a chance for GNG-qualifying sources to be identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Confirm that WP:NBASKETBALL does not list playing on a national team as making a player inherently notable.—Bagumba (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Omar Hesham played in and won the Basketball Africa League (BAL) in it's inaugural season. The Basketball Africa League (BAL) is the premier competition for basketball clubs in Africa, it is the most important and prestigious basketball club competition in Africa, and it's organised and sponsored by the NBA which is the premier basketball league in the world. The WP:NBASKETBALL should be changed to include the Basketball Africa League (BAL). If the premier and most important and prestigious basketball club competition in Africa is not considered notable, that's basically saying that African basketball is not important or significant, who decided that African basketball is not important or significant?! that's a bias. —Mahmoud The Beast (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahmoud The Beast: The BAL is an amazing competition that will hopefully elevate African basketball for years to come. However, under your suggestion, should that make every premier continental club competition inherently notable enough? Basketball Champions League Americas, FIBA Americas League, FIBA Asia Champions Cup, ABA Club Championship are all current or former premier continental leagues. Are you meaning to say that every player in every year of every one of these competitions is notable? If Omar Hesham is such a notable player, there should be some coverage in online sources. The admin has said he is waiting to close the discussion in case any other sources are found, which do not even have to be in English. A few days later and still no additional sources specifically discussing him have been added. What does this (likely) tell you about his notability and most of the players in the BAL? JTtheOG (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JTtheOG: Yes, I do believe so, but that is not the discussion. Keeping in mind that Omar Hesham did not just play in it, he won it, in it's inaugural season. Here is several sources that mention Omar Hesham and discusses him and his achievements (in Arabic):
https://www.filgoal.com/articles/411292
https://www.shorouknews.com/news/view.aspx?cdate=29062021&id=330c7f93-c078-4c62-87c5-f8e963dfd761
https://gate.ahram.org.eg/News/2843251.aspx
https://tatweeg.news/?p=30314
https://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/2367131
https://www.kooora.com/?n=1045371
https://www.masrtimes.com/98289
—Mahmoud The Beast (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahmoud The Beast: That's awesome. Since the last five are copies of eachother pasted on different websites, those are three additional sources that mention him. Any way you can flesh out the article by incorporating the information from these articles to better establish his notability? JTtheOG (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this is the only coverage on him then he fails WP:GNG and the article should be deleted. None of the sources in the article go towards GNG and all of the articles listed above (five of them being the same) are from June 2021. He has to have significant coverage over a longer period of time. If there is more then it is probably in the Egyptian media. I did find this article but I don't have enough knowledge on Egypt to know if this is a reliable source. Alvaldi (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as a result of this discussion I have proposed changing the Basketball player guidelines which are now very US-centered. I would like to know others think about this. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) --H-Hurry (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough in the history of Egyptian basketball. Someone looked in Arabic sources? SportsOlympic (talk) 20:43, 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) 03:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games developed in the United States[edit]

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

This list appears to largely duplicate an existing category, Category:Video games developed in the United States, which has more than 8000 items in it. It is very unlikely that this page will be adequately maintained to support over 8000 entries without errors, spam, omissions, etc. The category hierarchy is a stronger way to support such an extensive category. Otherwise this grow crufty. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too indiscriminate of a list. --MuZemike 15:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - whilst I usually support the inclusion of lists that duplicate categories, this one does seem to be absurdly broad. If kept, the inclusion criteria would need to be tightened somehow. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems that the named category is enough at this moment for dealing with the subject. Raymond3023 (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have created a sister discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games developed in the United Kingdom, which has 3700+ items in the relevant category, consistent with the scope comments of User:Spiderone. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. OceanHok (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Faaaaar too indiscriminate. Categories are better for this. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 22:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category material. The content does not fit in a list/article. Wario-Man ^talk 02:42, 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 no consensus. Essentially, the arguments for keeping (there is sufficient coverage to write an article) or deleting (the coverage only amounts to trivial passing mentions and can't be used to write anything of substance) are of about equal stature to each other and cancel each other out. For what it's worth, I did my own search for sources (in the hope I could break the logjam by !voting myself) and came away without any strong view one way or the other. So I think for now, No Consensus is the best option.

As a procedural note, the article I deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Hammond is not this person; this is the only AfD that has occurred for this subject. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Hammond[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This individual is a failed candidate for office, and does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Lots of refs, but they are mostly focused around the elections themselves and not significant coverage of the subject. Aranya (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll write what I wrote on the talk page:

The argument is made that she fails WP:NPOL because she was unelected. I believe you can still meet the notability criteria with significant media coverage, even if unelected.

It is also argued that all references being about the election or post-election process cause the article to fail WP:GNG.

My first reason being I disagree that all articles are about the election process. There is a section on her personal life which refers to her attempts at stand up comedy and multiple pieces on her children’s allergies, (second article) for example.

My second reason is she is a political candidate who has coverage consistently which is more than a trivial mentions.

New Zealand's national news station 1 News covered Ohariu and deemed her worthy of interviewing alongside the National, Labour, and New Zealand First candidates. This excludes the 6/10 other candidates running in Ohariu in 2020. It can be found here

I also want to add The Opportunities Party specifically poured resources into her campaign as they saw it as the only seat they can win, (article). She has won third place in Ohariu twice, beating the Green Party, which was a surprise for many given how much larger the Green Party (226,757 votes in 2020) is to The Opportunities Party. (43,449 votes in 2020).

Most local political candidates in New Zealand, including most of her competitors, only have trivial mentions, or barely any mentions about them at all, but she has a consistent pattern of being well-covered both about her political campaign but also events in her private life, and likely will continue to if she runs again, so I believe it displays notability.

Because of these reasons, I'd say I object to deletion. Nexus000 (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails general notability. The articles given are typical of interesting failed MP campaigns. The allergy and wheelchair story are trivial mentions eg "When Jean-Pierre Hammond’s daughter, Jessica Hammond, found out her 82-year-old father, who uses a wheelchair and lives in a rest home hospital, had been sold a treadmill that retails for more than $2000, she was outraged."[27] Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this page was set for deletion after another AfD in March this year why are we still debating it? Genuine question, this could be an important part of the process I am missing. Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first discussion was over a different person who merely happened to have the same name, so once it was deleted this person got moved to the current title since it was no longer necessary to disambiguate her. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dushan added "Removed my delete vote. Regardless of nit picking, Wikipedia is better with this article." to the edit summary when removing his delete vote. Nexus000 (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself a reason to deem a candidate as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass WP:NPOL — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would pass GNG and NPOL itself would be meaningless. Rather, to get a candidate treated as a special case, she needs to pass one of two other tests: either (a) you can demonstrate that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article anyway (e.g. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) you can demonstrate a credible reason why her candidacy should be treated as much, much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). Neither of those are in evidence here. GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who happens to pass an arbitrary number" — GNG tests for a variety of other factors, including whether the context of what the person is getting covered for would be expected to get them into an encyclopedia or not. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced any of the coverage demonstrated above actually demonstrates notability - she was a failed candidate and the media reports reflect that, and she's not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 21:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems like plenty of independent coverage to me. None of the sources seemed particularly deep, but are otherwise substantive, independent, and focused on Hammond's actions. I didn't click through all of the sources; are any of them full, dedicated profiles of her campaign(s)? Suriname0 (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any, but then I would expect anyone running for MP would have a decent bio written somewhere, maybe a local paper. It would not take much to change my mind from delete. Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is very rare for us to keep articles on failed candidates. We typically discount any articles written about campaigns as coverage that anyone would get, i.e. on NOTNEWS grounds. It's not impossible, but you have to show coverage above and beyond a normal campaign. Hammond is very far away from that threshold at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 12:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the wide range of sources show that she's notable as a community activist as much as she is a political candidate.-gadfium 18:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - relisted following DRV decision here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_October_20#Jessica_Hammond_(closed) — Amakuru (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete although she's close to meeting GNG as an activist, I don't quite think she's there yet. The bulk of GNG is NOTNEWS/ONEEVENT territory in that it stemmed from her failed candidacy, and consensus has been that coverage around the campaigns isn't suitable if they were not otherwise notable. Star Mississippi 19:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The subject fails WP:NPOL as a candidate. The subject is featured in several articles about her comedy, playwriting, and (to a degree) her activism. What we have is an interesting person who is mentioned with some regularity by New Zealand press, does not pass any SNG, and an article that focuses primarily about her failed political campaigns. --Enos733 (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is not a politican and doesn't make WP:NPOL so that is out. I don't see the lady as an activist in the tradional sense, suffering for her craft, e.g. where is the coverage when the elections are not being held, or she going around polling. There is a lot of PR in the list above, typical of somebody who has been selected, is on the election list and needs to stay relevant, so there is a significant PR spend to keep them in the news. And obviously stay relevent. So she is not politician yet, or an activist in the true sense. She is also a playwright. Where is the plays, and where is the reviews? No mention in the article. In the first six references, what coverage is there, is set piece PR, profiles and interviews. If she gets elected, she will get an article, but not now. scope_creep^Talk 13:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No in-depth coverage in secondary sources. None of the potentially relevant SNG criteria appear to be met. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:47, 24 October 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quicksilver (American game show)[edit]

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

Two extremely short lived game shows that got no mention in the media. "Quicksilver" "Ron Maestri" and "Free 4 All" "Mark Walberg" turned up only IMDb, blogs, wikis, and the Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows. Only newspaper coverage was a single press release announcing the debut of both. Delete or redirect to List of programs broadcast by USA Network. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:5P1. As mentioned by the nominator, the gameshow has an entry in the Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows. As such, we should include it per pillar one of the WP:Five pillars which specifically mentions doing the work of specialized encyclopedias. Basically, if a topic has an entry in a published specialized encyclopedia it automatically meets GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 23 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)} 01:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 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) 05:35, 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 The Trinity (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never Gonna Be the Same (Sean Paul song)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability found, from either the article or a Google search undertaken prior to this nomination. Chart positions aren't necessarily an indication of notability, and I've not found anything to indicate this song in particular is notable. Sean Stephens (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you only look at a Google News search - in 80% of cases you will never find notability. Eurohunter (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did both a Google and Google News search, neither of which turned up anything. That's considered the bare minimum before nominating articles for deletion. Sean Stephens (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Trinity (album). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:51, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) TheChronium 10:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agawam, Oklahoma[edit]

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

It seems to have failed a WP:BEFORE search, though it does exist. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This isn't the greatest source because it's a 1920s advertisement by the company promoting the town, but it does provide some information on this place. This is a newspaper article discussing Agawam being used as a rail shipping point. Described as a "new oil town" and had town lots selling in 1923. Implied to be a community in a 1940s article about the Agawam school. This refers to Agawam as a "community defined at that time". [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Oklahoma_Place_Names/KpAmsIFdutAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=agawam Had a post office from 1909 to 1918. There's also dozens of detailed Agawam School sports articles in older newspaper results on newspapers.com. And a bunch of passing mentions of the place, even continuing into some 2020 obituaries. I just can't find a whole lot detailing the community after the oil town was planned and the lots marked off. Maybe others can find something clearer. Hog Farm _Talk 02:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Using Hog Farm's newspaper clipping and other sources, I was able to source this article, though of course more could be added. Agawam had a population of 35 in 1960, according to World Book Encyclopedia, and it'd be weird for us to delete something recorded in other reference works. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see lots of small newspaper pieces with Agawam as the location at the start of the articles or as birthplaces of people, etc., and an AP article in the Waco Morning News dated 20 October 1915, reported two trains colliding there, with seven fatalities. I may clip it from newspapers.com and add it to this article later. Clarityfiend (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nauru Amateur Soccer Association[edit]

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

Non-notable, same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cocos (Keeling) Islands Soccer Association and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christmas Island Soccer Association wizzito | say hello! 04:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 04:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 04:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 04:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the other AFDs for associations of non-FIFA affiliated teams. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per recent consensus, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not sure what is gained from deleting the national football association for a sovereign country. Seems to be significant enough to be kept, even if not affiliated with FIFA.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The national FA is the Nauru Soccer Federation meaning NASA is a hoax. I don't see any significant coverage of the NSF meaning I have to vote delete. Dougal18 (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dougal - this organisation doesn't exist Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trishna Singh[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. A draft also exists at Draft:Trishna Singh that was moved form mainspace to draftspace. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable actress with few minor roles to her credit. Her film with Akshay Kumar is not even released yet. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Umakant Bhalerao. No significant coverage. Trakinwiki (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete May be WP:TOOSOON, for now it fails WP:NACTOR. DJRSD (talk) 08:52, 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) 04:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Pathmasiri[edit]

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

Article fails WP:ANYBIO - lacks significant coverage (only a series of mentions in passing), holds a non-notable public servant position, and has no other notable achievements. Has been tagged with notability issues since October 2015 without any significant improvements or more reliable references. Dan arndt (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable civil servant. Uhooep (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete aside from the announcement of his appointment I see his name on many lists of attendees at government functions, but no in depth coverage in RIS. There may be coverage in Sinhalese I am not able to search for - if there is I’d reconsider my !vote. Mccapra (talk) 03:53, 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Lienau[edit]

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

Was moved to draft in hopes of improvement. Moved back without such. Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A long biography is available via medienkorrespondenz.de. The article shows notability and also states that sources about her shouldn’t be looked for online. As she was known during a long career in the pre-internet era, we should search in offline sources. I don’t know where to search; but she had frontcover-magazine articles (for instance Zeit Zeichen). SportsOlympic (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - Agreed probably keep based on the obit, but it's not quite enough on its own (Google Translate link). I agree that the necessary sources likely exist offline; the obit explicitly says "If you search for traces of Marianne Lienau on the internet, you will hardly find anything." Suriname0 (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I could only spare 25 minutes. I have added two extra refs, a photo and noted that she founded a radio programme that ran for 35 years plus. Must have taken about that time to move it to draft and back and for editors to add the comments above. Victuallers (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. I'm updating my vote to Keep. Suriname0 (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the above/post-nom expansion work. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:17, 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 03:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Promises[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage or other indications of notability per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 02:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can only find the film listed at the usual directory sites like IMDb and its own promotional websites. It does not seem to have attracted the independent and reliable coverage required at WP:NFILM. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and nom. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 22:08, 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. Daniel (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Gadi Baaki Anadi (film)[edit]

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

Non notable film, coverage is all about the actors and nothing about the content of the film. Fails WP:NFILM. Nothing in a WP:BEFORE helped it pass.

PROD removed by article creator. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:40, 16 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)} 01:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet any of the WP:NFILM criteria and I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass either Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music City Mystique[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY, it doesn't have close to the coverage or significance. Deleted at previous AfD due to copyvio. Boleyn (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was delete.

Previous discussions: 2007-07 (closed as ✗ delete)

Logs: 2007-10 ✗ deleted, 2007-08 ✗ deleted

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:39, 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) 04:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thrive15[edit]

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

This article appears to have been created by a single-purpose account to promote a business that is not of any particular importance soibangla (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. soibangla (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a ref bombed, glorified advert about a clearly non-notable company. So there's zero reason to keep it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: References do appear to make it look well sourced, but none stack up to provide meaningful information. The company simply isn't notable at all and readily fails WP:GNG; little appears in search. Company feels scammy too. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 06:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has sufficient coverage including these in-depth [28] and [29], also a mention in Fast Company and few other mentions are from credible publications. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP therefore references are required to contain both in-depth information *and* "Independent Content". Both the emails mentioned by Tautomers are promotional "pre-launch" articles and a careful read of those references shows that the information was provided by the company, failing WP:ORGIND. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:21, 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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mossy Kilcher[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:SIGCOV Bit like F.J.McMahon. scope_creep^Talk 18:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Northwind Calling. Fails WP:MUSICBIO but the record at least has some decent sourcing. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was featured in the New York Times last year https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/arts/music/mossy-kilcher-northwind-calling.html also https://www.folkradio.co.uk/2020/07/mossy-kilchers-northwind-calling-digital/ and https://americana-uk.com/mossy-kilcher-northwind-calling-tompkins-square-2020 Piecesofuk (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The musician also has an album article at Northwind Calling, which should be addressed if the musician's article is deleted. One voter above suggested merging the musician to the album, which is not common procedure and does not make a lot of sense. I would recommend the reverse. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep - She released an obscure album in 1977 and was totally unknown until 2020, when the album was reissued and got some reviews. It was definitely covered in New York Times, and I found a few other reviews too: [30], [31]. The reviews paint her as a creator of a unique type of Alaskan music, which just barely meets a couple of requirements at WP:NMUSICIAN. However, material about her social activities in her hometown is not notable and her album article should probably be redirected. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is just enough coverage to pass notability, but it would probably be a good idea for somebody to start a discussion to merge the album article into this one.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources such as a dedicated article in the New York Times and reviews that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:28, 11 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 03:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canadians for a Nuclear Weapons Convention[edit]

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

I don't think this article is notable wizzito | say hello! 20:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 20:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 20:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NORG. Cannot find any significant coverage. Article is promotional in nature. Rogermx (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a search brought up only primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:17, 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 03:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compliance and ethics program[edit]

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

This is an argumentative essay and not really an encyclopedic article. Amigao (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is essentially a term paper, and not a particularly engaging one either. I find it difficult to discern what this page is even trying to be about? --Tautomers_{(T C)} 07:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 27,000 bytes of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and its been that way for 15 years. Mlb96 (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the nom. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:22, 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty or Nice (2012 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage or any other evidence of notability as described at WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 02:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage found. Doesn't meet GNG. Trakinwiki (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: outside of TV listings and database entries (which are unreliable sources or only passing mentions example), I did find one review from flickfeast.co.uk [32], but I have no idea of its reliability. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should not be just sourcing things to the unreliable IMDb and the website of the subject. We need substantive secondary reliable sources that are indepdent of the subject, such is lacking in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:32, 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver's Ghost[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage or any other indication of notability as described at WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 02:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Nothing to suggest pass of WP:GNG or WP:NFILM nearlyevil 665 10:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My search only returned unreliable to questionable sources [33]. Does not pass NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 12:51, 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. ✗plicit 03:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

O.C. Confidential (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable erotic film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources or other indications of notability, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 01:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails both NFILM and GNG. I could find no coverage for this after some extensive research. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:32, 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Hardy[edit]

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

Found this one in the Unsourced BLP category. There's a good reason why this article has no reliable sources. That's because there are no sources to be found. Not on the first three pages of Google, not on Google News, nowhere. This is an obvious fail of WP:ENT and GNG. 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It is not notable. --Bduke (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article lacks any reliable sources. IMDb is not reliable and seeks to be totally comprehensive, while we do not consider every person who ever had a credited part in a commerical TV or film production to be notable. His website clearly cannot be used to show he is notability either. Wikipedia is not meant to be a lightly annotated directory to all websites.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mentioned in passing here but I can't find anything to support a notability claim Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 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 merge to Paducah & Louisville Railway (or another suitable target if something else is better). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P&L Transportation[edit]

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

It doesn't meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH Asketbouncer (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paducah & Louisville Railway, where parent company & other components are already mentioned, especially since name and history of corporate structure is pertinent to that article. Djflem (talk) 12:54, 25 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) 00:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To either P&L or CSX where what little sourceable information on this could be included.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 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 keep. significant coverage in reliable sources demonstrated 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Event Horizons BBS[edit]

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

There's no question this BBS existed, but it doesn't pass WP:GNG. There are a few small references to it based on its porn category but there's hardly any coverage of it.

See also concurrent AFDs for Jim Maxey, Oregon State Media, Inc. tedder (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Some passing mentions in blogs but not much in the way of WP:RS. The only thing close would be Wired [34] but even this is just a few sentences about profitability and porn. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, decent amount of coverage in various sources.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 17:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your big improvements. Can you tell me if there is some depth of coverage in any of the sources? I think all of the books are basically a mention, Wired is two paragraphs. The Oregonian is 500 words and should count for significant coverage, any others? tedder (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In addition to the WIRED and Oregonian articles, the article in Boardwatch is over 1,600 words and covers the 3D astronomy simulator they developed, in addition to the other aspects of the BBS. The entry in The Joy of Cybersex is a couple paragraphs. Some of the books were just a paragraph or a blurb, but added details.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 21:22, 25 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) 00:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements. Thanks Surv1v4l1st, nice work! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:18, 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. BD2412 T 04:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gillmor Gang[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG. I searched for quite a while on Google News and couldn't find any sources that were reliable secondary sources of information. The podcast appears to have been produced by TechCrunch and Steve Gillmor wrote articles for TechCrunch that have been republished by YahooNews under different domain names. After excluding any search results from TechCrunch and Yahoo news there are some very questionable sites that have published the podcast's newletter, which I believe would still be considered a primary source. Aside from that there are a few other mentions of the words "gillmor" and "gang" in some articles, but they refer to other things. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator's actions puzzle me. There was a WP:PROD message put on the article, and I improved it on the same day with updated information and removed the template as was prescribed by the guidelines - "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." And yet here we are on the AfD. The podcast had its heyday and influence and was one of the first podcasts in this space when it started in May 2004, being a firm part of Internet history if you look at the guests and presence. You cannot (and should not) simply go by Google News or we are in big trouble all around. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fuzheado, can you please provide independent and reliable secondary sources that demonstrate the notability of this podcast? Right now the article's references are almost exclusively from sources with direct connections to the podcast itself so I don't believe they meet the requirements of being independent. Many of the sources are directly from the podcast and it's hosts which makes them primary sources. As far as I'm aware having notable guests on a podcast does not make the podcast notable. Similarly, it doesn't even matter if the hosts are notable. I was going by Google News because there aren't many print sources on podcasts, but based on a quick Google Books search there only appears to be trivial mentions in couple sources. I would be very suprised if there are any physical newspapers that mention the podcast but if someone has a newspapers.com membership they could check for you. Perhaps I opened a AfD process sooner than was appropriate, but I don't think demonstrating WP:GNG for this subject is possible TipsyElephant (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC

TipsyElephant, I can confirm that "Gillmor Gang" does not turn up any hits on newspapers.com. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:44, 22 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) 00:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the podcast. Search results return books containing passing mentions of it. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources on page do not pass WP:RS. Probably a bit too soon. Sasquatch t|c 02:12, 13 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.

From the nominator. I got confused about the nature of the company. Therefore, I closed the discussion so I can get the facts right. I will have to find out more about this before I decide to re-nominate for deletion. Sorry about this. Mistakes happen. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(24)7.ai[edit]

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

This is a call center in India. No apparent significant impact. Fails CORPDEPTH, ORGCRITE, SIRS. Coverage is trivial and / or incidental. Previous 2007 Afd under a different article name. The linked sources in the previous AfD do not seem to indicate notability for this company. See wp:company for guidance. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the 2007 AFD: [35]. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the nominator. I got confused about the nature of the company. Therefore, I closed the discussion so I can get the facts right. I will have to find out more about this before I decide to re-nominate for deletion. Sorry about this. Mistakes happen. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:38, 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.

[1] Acena, TJ (August 26, 2020). "Graphic voices of Guantanamo". Oregon ArtsWatch. Retrieved 1 July 2021.

[2] "GUANTANAMO VOICES". Kirkus Reviews. June 12, 2020. Retrieved 30 June 2021.

[3] Cannon, Frances (December 22, 2020). "Sarah Mirk's GUANTANAMO VOICES". The Iowa Review. Retrieved 30 June 2021.

[4] Sarah, Lakshmi (September 12, 2020). "A New Graphic Novel Makes the Stories of Guantánamo Bay Visible". KQED. Retrieved 30 June 2021.

[5] Park, Ed; Chute, Hillary (December 9, 2020). "The Best Graphic Novels of 2020". The New York Times. Retrieved 30 June 2021.,

[ALA_2021-6] "YALSA names 2021 Great Graphic Novels for Teens". American Library Association. January 6, 2021. Retrieved 30 June 2021.

[Parkin_2021-7] Parkin, JK (May 4, 2021). "'Guantanamo Voices' wins the 2021 Lynd Ward Graphic Novel Prize". Smash Pages. Retrieved 1 July 2021.

[Breznican_2019-8] Breznican, Anthony (March 12, 2019). "First Look: World Citizen Comics aims to create super-powered activists". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 30 June 2021.

[PW_2021-9] "RE: Constitutions: Connecting Citizens with the Rules of the Game". Publishers Weekly. June 10, 2021. Retrieved 30 June 2021.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]