Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 07 October 09 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Kaiser[edit]

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

I'm not sure this person complies WP:NPOL. They are just the councilor of a commune of Santiago. Being the sister of Axel Kaiser, the executive director of a libertarian think tank and a columnist of two newspapers do not make her any more notable. Bedivere (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 8 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HearMeOut[edit]

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

Fails the WP:GNG, no evidence of significant coverage and article was created by a paid editor. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at first it looked promising, since it did have a public offering. However, it seemed to raise only $6.5 million which they mostly burned through in a couple years with no revenues before shutting down. Not long enough to meet notability guidelines. It was also a bit odd to say the "App" was listed on the stock exchange. Presumably the company was, not the App, unless it works differently than any other stock market I know. W Nowicki (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable app whose only pop was being on a car audio system and which was easily copyable by most known social media platforms (Twitter instituted it in 2020). Nate • (chatter) 02:37, 9 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Garretson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only source which could contribute to notability is the TVOvermind listicle. Everything else is either a brief mention or affiliated with Garretson CiphriusKane (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. Currently fails NACTRESS and GNG. She has only completed one notable role, but has a significant role in an upcoming series. It's likely she will pass NACTRESS criteria 1 in the near future.4meter4 (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:36, 15 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 keep. Noting that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frederico Trajano[edit]

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

Businessman BLP does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is inherited from Magazine Luiza (the company he inherited from his father). MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Frederico Trajano was responsible by a huge digital transformation and expansion of the Magazine Luiza, a very big and important Brazilian company~, he replaced very well his mother Luiza Trajano. He is very famous in Brazil and his notability is based in the great work done as CEO of Magalu. He was listed by Forbes among the TOP 25 CEOS of Brazil for three consecutive years as described in the article and here. You can check an interesting publication about the Magazine Luiza case study here. For sure this biography cover - Any Biography ( 1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times;) Rodrigo Padula (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. He appears to have been given some award recognition that extends beyond the normal trivial award puffery given to businessman. The GQ Brasil Man of the Year award is particularly convincing. Ultimately, I think the sources in the article indicate the subject marginally meets GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:57, 14 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 redirect to Tula Pahate Re. Sandstein 10:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gayatri Datar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR as they are yet to feature in lead roles neither have they won any significant award. Most sources used are the now deprecated Times of India, thus I’m unable to locate non deprecated real reliable sources that discuss the subject of the article. Celestina007 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She is recognized actress in Marathi entertainment industry. She also feature in lead role of Zee Marathi's Tula Pahate Re serial which was very hit in TRP and for that she also got award in Zee marathi awards, she participated in Chala Hawa Yeu Dya one of the biggest comedy show of Maharashtra and also a winner. she also participated in Bigg Boss Marathi which is one of the india's biggest reality show. There are clearly enough reliable sources on the article to establish notability WP:NACTOR. Typo2021 (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Let us start by you are the creator of this article and it appears you are 7 days old so I’d assume you aren’t familiar with our notability policy on actors, NACTOR requires multiple lead roles in movies and series, they do not satisfy this, they haven’t won any prestigious award. Lastly, participating in a reality TV show which they did not emerge the winner does not confer notability. You can see all this in WP:ENT, WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tula Pahate Re, the TV series in which she featured. That's the only lead role so far she has done. No other notability. Contestant in reality show isn't notable to pass GNG. The in-house award of Zee Marathi isn't notable either. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tula Pahate Re, until WP:GNG is really satisfied. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the subject is a notable actress and simple Google search returns numerous articles that confirms notability.Advait.kansal (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment — I’m sorry, but merely stating they are notable and a “mere google search returns many articles” is not helpful, could you show us any WP:THREE sources that corroborate this claim? Or could you show us what criterion from WP:NACTOR is met. Furthermore fame & notability aren’t one and the same, so please back to what I was saying what sources or criterion from NACTOR substantiate this? Celestina007 (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tula Pahate Re. The subject fails NACTRESS and GNG is not yet independently notable enough for a stand alone article.4meter4 (talk) 21:00, 14 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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW; and, arguably, because the nominator's comment applied to the article in its current state would be CSK no. 3. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firehose of falsehood[edit]

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

A neologism that fails notability. The term "firehose of falsehood" was coined in an article published by the RAND Corporation, which was later used by a few non-experts in opinion pieces, which do not count as reliable sources except for the opinions of their authors. Otherwise, the RAND Corporation has not published any other articles using the term, it has not been picked up in academic sources or reported in news articles and has not entered public discourse. TFD (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Renat 21:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Renat 21:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete or redirect to Mass marketing#Shotgun approach. For the reasons stated in the nomination and WP:FORK. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC) Retracting !vote, due to sources listed below. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not related to mass marketing. It is not a fork. soibangla (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I come across this term relatively often, it seems. See Vice, Nieman Lab, Sydney Morning Herald, Mother Jones, Vox, Psychology Today. There are some sources I'm not sure about, like these two Indonesian journals: Wacana and Jurnal Transformative. And then there are the opinion columns and whatnot, which, granted, don't add a lot to notability: The Guardian, CNN, etc. I stopped looking after a few pages of gscholar and ghits returned enough to satisfy WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: I count seven reliable sources that are news articles reporting the term. Seems to easily pass WP:GNG. Contrary to the nominators claim, the article's sources are evidence that the term has entered the public discourse. ––FormalDude talk 05:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Rhododendrites' source findings. It seems that the term has been written about rather than just used to the point where it is (a) sufficiently notable and (b) a decent encyclopedia article can be written about it. firefly ( t · c ) 12:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  The article’s subject is a broadly discussed phenomenon or technique in the field of disinformation and propaganda. If the name is not good, propose renaming. If the subject is dealt with elsewhere, propose merging. —Michael Z. 14:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rhododendrites. There are enough sources for this to be notable enough for an article here. -- Valjean (talk) 16:16, 9 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no other delete proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Tiger (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFO; has only one review from Variety. Needs two or more reviews in order to be eligible. Found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:44, 8 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 keep. ✗plicit 14:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline at Midnight[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFO; has only one review. Needs two or more reviews in order to be eligible. Found sole review at Rotten Tomatoes and nothing else at a WP:BEFORE search. The Film Creator (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep'. TV Guide has this. There is also a four-paragraph review in The Missoulian on 4 March 1994, albeit a small newspaper. The film was pretty prolific on tv in 1994 (Newspapers.com: 1,531 Matches · "Caroline at Midnight" "mia sara" from 1994), and the Miami Herald 8 May 1994 lists it in the tv listing along with two stars, indicating a review has been made. The film score has actually been released. Geschichte (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added sources to the article. The New York Times states the film dates from 1993 not 1994. The is likely true as Variety lists the film among R rated releases in December 1993. However, it didn't hit cable TV until 1994, which is probably why it's been dated to 1994 in other sources. In doing a source hunt in ProQuest, the film was a regular on cable (Cinemax, TMC, and Showtime) in 1994 and 1995; appearing almost weekly on one station or another during those years. As such, it had wide distribution beyond the direct-to-video market. The TMC airing of the show (with film critic Joe Bob Briggs interviewing producer Roger Corman) was reviewed in The New York Times; although the article was more focused on Corman's B-movie and direct-to-video career than actually analyzing the film. There are lots of hits in google books, with a few that look like they may contain reviews but which are not available for view. I think with the sources I added to the article and the sources provided by Geschichte the film passes NFO and GNG; but for doubters if you lump in the potential sources in google books this is a solid keep.4meter4 (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per sources discussed by 4meter4. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per sources discussed by 4meter4. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:18, 12 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 merge to Har Nof#Synagogues and public institutions. Sandstein 10:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derech Etz Chaim[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. (There's a bunch of articles on small Yeshivas that don't seem to meet WP:ORG (tho some do), if not deleted, maybe they should just be merged into one article?) Yaakovaryeh (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:43, 8 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Johnson (mixed martial artist)[edit]

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

Rocky Johnson does not meet WP:MMABIO criteria, he does not have any fights in a top tier promotion, nor has he ever been ranked near top 10 in the world. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 20:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I think the nominator is correct. Not enough coverage to qualify for WP:N. Let us hope he does not beat any of us up. Ode+Joy (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's not close to being notable as an MMA fighter and he lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of independent and reliable references. Fails WP:MMABIOBrayan ocaner (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under tier one promotions and also fails GNG as records are merely routine sport reports. Cassiopeia talk 23:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Needs at at least 3 fights under tier one promotions. Yet arguably its difficult to find even one -Imcdc (talk) 14:30, 15 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 delete. Hog Farm Talk 16:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reda El Chaar[edit]

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

No significant coverage, references used are either user-contributed sources or are of the business press-release genre. Fails GNG, and is probably a WP:SPIP shoo-in.

WP:BEFORE search shows little beyond the sources provided here too, which are insufficient.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Forbes middle east Press release No An obvious press release from his own company value not understood press release No routine press release ✘ No
Registry of companies Yes Government list of companies value not understood Unlikely to be faked No A list of companies of no inherent substantivity ✘ No
Forbes middle east "silent uprising" No Written by user-contributed content; no editorial oversight No user-generated content value not understood if it were a reliable source, this may be substantial ✘ No
Arabian Business magazine No A press release style "40 under 40" fluff piece value not understood highly contentious information, unknown editorial policies No Mentioned in a list of other people ✘ No
Coverage in Entrepeneur No Unclear who the contributors to Entrepeneur Middle East are, no published editorial guidelines, unclear if Tamara Pupic is connected or was paid for this piece value not understood Unclear provenence of data value not understood Might be borderline substantial if the other concerns could be met ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 19:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The source assessment table says it all. Not enough coverage to pass WP:N. This is a personal bio, not an encyclopedia page. Ode+Joy (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Lacking in coverage which would establish notability. - Aoidh (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Source assessment tells me this fails WP:GNG. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Miniapolis 22:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:33, 9 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TolumiDE[edit]

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

Fails Musicbio. Deleted in 2017. Coverage is mentioned in passing. scope_creepTalk 19:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:44, 8 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Mollet[edit]

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

Notability tagged for over 8 years. Contested PROD. Original rationale Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. remains valid as far as I can see. He came close to playing in a WP:FPL league when he played in the Swiss Challenge League but it's not listed at FPL currently so he doesn't actually pass the presumption of notability that WP:NFOOTBALL provides. Every single external link and reference is just a stats database profile page or trivial mention.

Searches in Google News and DDG provide us with a handful of passing semi-pro match report mentions and the occasional appearance in a list of players such as RTS and Swiss Info, none of which establishes notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Not what you might call a major player. Not enough coverage to pass WP:N. Ode+Joy (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. Fails NFOOTY and GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:29, 9 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mujtaba Mohammed[edit]

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

Badly sourced BLP on a footballer with no evidence of notability. Searching "مجتبى محمد" yields no apparent coverage of this footballer and the one cited source doesn't mention him at all. His Arabic Wikipedia article is also sourced with the same reference that doesn't seem to mention him. Looks like he fails WP:GNG and possibly even WP:V. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:09, 8 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic McGiveron[edit]

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

Not clear on what basis McGiveron qualifies for an article. He has only played for amateur clubs in England and at a very, very low level of the footballing pyramid in the USA, Finland, Norway and Sweden. None of the sources qualify for WP:GNG and I could find nothing better myself. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
http://www1.hallmarksecurityleague.com/?tm=1&subid4=1633717588.0111330000&kw=football+league&KW1=League%20Scheduling%20System&KW2=Official%20Team%20Apparel&KW3=Match%20Results&searchbox=0&domainname=0&backfill=0 ? ? ? Can't access but appears to be a website for an amateur league so can't see how it would confer notability ? Unknown
http://www1.hallmarksecurityleague.com/?tm=1&subid4=1633717588.0111330000&kw=football+league&KW1=League%20Scheduling%20System&KW2=Official%20Team%20Apparel&KW3=Match%20Results&searchbox=0&domainname=0&backfill=0 ? ? ? As above ? Unknown
https://twitter.com/NikeAcademy/status/592709484763484160?lang=en-gb No No Tweets are not RS No ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNIVPUhYJ7U No No YouTube isn't RS No ✘ No
http://kitsapsoccerclub.com/2016/04/12/kitsap-pumas-sign-midfielders-ibrahim-diaby-dominic-mcgiveron/ No Club's own website No No ✘ No
http://www.valdresfk.no/nyheter/2018/3/dominic-mcgiveron-klar-for-valdres!.aspx No His club's own website No No Just a routine transfer piece which fails to confer notability ✘ No
https://www.oa.no/sport/fotball/valdres-fk/ny-engelskmann-klar-for-valdres-fk/s/5-35-588551 Yes Yes No Transfer announcement that briefly explains what position he plays and lists some former clubs, no real SIGCOV ✘ No
http://www.fc-utd.co.uk/news-story/new-signings-midfielder-josh-hmami-and-striker-dominic-mcgiveron No His club's own website No No Transfer announcement ✘ No
https://www.findbets.co.uk/ No No No No mention of him ✘ No
http://www.fc-utd.co.uk/news-story/player-news-fisher-extends-his-loan-spell-sass-davies-returns-to-crewe- No His own club No No Trivial ✘ No
https://www.pitchero.com/clubs/bamberbridge/teams/53473/news/breaking-player-news-russ-saunders-and-dominic-mcg-2402192.html Yes Yes No Trivial mention of transfer ✘ No
http://gratistidning.com/pitea/2020/03/07/dominic-mcgiveron-ar-klar/ No His own club No ~ Only a small amount of coverage ✘ No
https://fotbolltransfers.com/site/news/133700 Yes Yes No Brief mention ✘ No
https://schoolsfootball.org/international/2013/boys/under-18-squad/#18-Dominic-McGiveron ? ? ? ? Unknown
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/files.pitchero.com%2Fclubs%2F13834%2FCammellLairdSeniorCup14210114_101377.pdf No His own club No No Passing mention in matchday programme for an amateur club is no basis for an article ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20180705151538/http://www.esfa.co.uk/international/?2013%2Fboys#Winners-:-England Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20180705151538/http://www.esfa.co.uk/international/?2013/boys#Winners-:-England Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://www.palloliitto.fi/splkpohj/kolmonen/tilastot?competition=kpjp17 Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://www.svenskfotboll.se/serier-cuper/tabell-och-resultat/ Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The source assessment table is quite clear. No clear indication of passing WP:GNG. All these fhese footballers need to start their own website and post their bios there. Ode+Joy (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. I notice that the creator was called Tiffanydom and she only ever made four edits, all to this article about someone called Dominic. Perhaps Tiffany had a personal interest in Dom, ha! No Great Shaker (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted! I'm surprised that Tiffany didn't take the opportunity to mention herself in the article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per all above, and most helpfully the source assessment table from nom. Fails GNG and NFOOTY. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:04, 10 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 redirect to Magic: The Gathering expansion sets, 1993–1995#Mechanics. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 10:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legend (Magic: The Gathering)[edit]

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

This is just one minor aspect of Magic: The Gathering rules (itself a problematic article when it comes to WP:GNG). I have serious doubts this topic meets GNG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:05, 8 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

QC Royals[edit]

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

Non-notable fan club. WP:BEFORE brings up some stuff about a minor league baseball team, but nothing secondary about this club. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, fails WP:ORGCRIT – probably to Charlotte FC#Club culture, though it may also make sense to make Stumptown AC the target until their plan to attend every Charlotte FC game has a chance to turn into present tense. AngryHarpy‍talk 17:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, as above, and give it a sentence or two in the article. Ode+Joy (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given there is no appropriate target for a redirect. GiantSnowman 21:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Purely a local interest group only. Does not have notability. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – as a non-notable supporters group. Could perhaps be redirected to Sports in Charlotte, North Carolina, considering that article has a paragraph just about soccer in the city? Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of SIGCOV, Doesn't have significant coverage from citations.Misasory (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, right now it feels like a promotion/advertisement of the organization, but if there is other sources, it could become notable. SecretlyQuebecois (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC) SecretlyQuebecois is a CU-confirmed sock. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or draftify into Charlotte FC. Ivario (talk) 23:00, 13 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

School of Management Sciences[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ORG, ineligible for WP:NSCHOOL as it is a for-profit institution. ASUKITE 15:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced and non notable. Gentleman wiki (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: it's not stated in the article that it's for-profit, and I'm not able to easily find information to confirm that. Are we sure that it's for-profit? I'm seeing that the website of it's Lucknow campus claims that the school is non-profit, writing that ...the SMS Society, a philanthropic social organization, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, established an autonomous nonprofit educational center, School of Management Sciences (SMS), in Varanasi avowed with a mission of imparting highly innovative management, computer and other technical education in the eastern part of India.... As a result, I'm not so sure that this educational institution ineligible for WP:NSCHOOL. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not that's true (and I noticed this after re-reading the guideline after I opened this, actually) WP:NSCHOOL seems to indicate that even a nonprofit institution should satisfy at least one of GNG or ORG, which I am still having trouble finding sources for. If we do consider it to be nonprofit, it will still need better sources. ASUKITE 23:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Promotional article without independent references. Not notable. Advait.kansal (talk) 09:08, 13 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 delete. Hog Farm Talk 19:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academy Award for Best Actress winners by age[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Academy Award for Best Actress winners by age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial cross-categorisation ("age at death" and "Academy Award winner") which is also statistical trivia. Unsourced WP:OR. The article is a very confusing table of winners of "Academy Award X" by age, and is loaded with trivia, such as their date of birth, date of award, age when they received award, date of death, and final age. All ages are in years and days, and final ages are also tabulated in xx,xxx thousands of days they were alive.

The actual Academy Award for Best Actress list is of Featured List quality, which underpins how pointlessly trivial this cross-categorization is. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because all five articles are nearly identical and were created by the same editor:

List of Academy Award for Best Actor winners by age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor winners by age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress winners by age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Academy Award for Best Director winners by age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Newshunter12 (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I agree with all of the above. Athel cb (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Useless contentforks and listcruft which fail WP:LISTN. It is increasingly becoming clear we need some kind of overall consensus on "by age" lists as they are almost all contentforks where the age information can just as well be displayed in an overall list (if people are that interested). Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all As explained per above comments. -Imcdc (talk) 14:33, 15 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 delete. Sandstein 10:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Muwema[edit]

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

no 3rd party sources except promotional interviews DGG ( talk ) 08:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject has been mentioned in a few articles, but they do appear to be mostly in the nature of promotional rather than independent assessments. I am unable to determine from sources why the subject is any more notable than any other mid-career law firm partner. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:36, 12 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio Bulgari (b 1977)[edit]

Giorgio Bulgari (b 1977) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing cited in the article counts towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online. Forbes contributor articles do not count, see WP:RSP. Scion of a notable family, but see WP:NOTINHERITED. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Looks like UPE to me. Edwardx (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I saw this page and did some research, found some sources that I added. I know notability can't be inherited but looks like he is notable in his region as well as in others due to his businesses and family. Have press in both EN and IT. So, I believe this passes WP:GNG. Also, the main confusion is due to the same name as Mr. Giorgio Bulgari.JK.Kite (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:16, 8 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kemal Can Ocak[edit]

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

Person doesn't seem to be notable. "Kimdir?" sources are not reliable and most others are just repeating what he says about wine/alcohol, and those websites aren't reliable anyways. This source from Posta makes an attempt, but is mostly a gallery with a few sentences, nothing significant. No claims of meeting CREATIVE.

Previously deleted on the Turkish Wikipedia. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 15:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 15:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 15:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 15:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Nowhere near notable. Perhaps that was why they deleted the Turkish Wiki page. Ode+Joy (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete looks like promo. The article on the Dutch Wikipedia is also removed. The Banner talk 00:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable internet personality.There's no assertion of notability here.Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:43, 10 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. Sandstein 10:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Palace of the King of the Birds[edit]

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

Per discussion at WikiProject The Beatles. With an unreliable source and a YouTube clip, we believe it doesn't warrant an article. – zmbro (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – zmbro (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – zmbro (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In discussing the Rupert the Bear soundtrack demo session, Madinger & Easter mention it only in passing: "Many of the musical themes heard here had been around for a while. ... 'The Palace of the King of the Birds' (as announced in Paul's narration) appeared as early as the January 1969 Get Back / Let It Be sessions." (Madinger & Easter 2018, p. 239) Despite this, Sulpy and Schweighardt don't mention it at all. I can't find anything else, so I agree that it ought to be Deleted. Tkbrett (✉) 14:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It does appear to be one of the more notable unreleased Beatles recordings, in that it has appeared on some lists of "best unreleased" such as this from Far Out Magazine, and this from Vulture, where the instrumental playing of the Beatles is praised. It is covered in Richie Unterberger's The Unreleased Beatles: Music and Film (2006), where it is described as "about as close at the Beatles came to progressive rock jamming - highly uncharacteristic territory for the group to be wandering into, but interesting for precisely that reason." (p.239). The song is mentioned here as a possible candidate for the 50th anniversary reissue of Let It Be, although ultimately it didn't make it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Pawnkingthree for that contribution. It's clear to me that this passage of music merits an article on WP, but the name must be changed as per the comments on the article's talk page. Spicemix (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spicemix - in fact, Pawnkingthree has pointed out that title was mentioned in the 2006 book - so the claim in youtube about the title is not correct. -- Beardo (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per Pawkingthree's comments here and addition of further sources in the article. -- Beardo (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks everyone. Spicemix (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thanks to PK3 from me also for looking into this further. I've just found an entry (titled "Instrumental") for the track in Sulpy & Schweighardt's Get Back: The Unauthorized Chronicle of the Beatles' Let It Be Disaster, but even with that and any recent additions to the page, I still don't think it's sufficient to allow for an article on Wikipedia. It just seems like trivia for Beatles completists, not a subject for an encyclopaedia. Every minute (almost) of the Beatles' career receives some sort of coverage because they're the most written about act in popular music. But it doesn't mean that every single minor topic that writers cover briefly merits a dedicated article. (For instance, Sulpy & Schweighardt's index contains approximately 90 entries for "Improvisation"s or "Instrumental"s dated between 2 and 27 January '69, and another 16 for "Unknown"s.) I don't think Wikipedia should follow, say, Beatles Bible's lead, or exhaustive Beatles "encyclopaedias" written by Bill Harry or Kenneth Womack, in affording minor items like this such attention. If Unterberger offers a quick comment on the piece, and Vulture and Far Out include it in their listicles, well, so what ...? JG66 (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm also unconvinced that it deserves a separate article, which is why I haven't cast a vote yet. It and some of the more interesting outtakes could easily be mentioned in the section on the Get Back sessions at the Let It Be album article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my copied comments above and JG's comments above. The content is so light that it can be merged into the Rupert and the Frog Song article, if needed. Tkbrett (✉) 13:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per sources provided by Pawnkingthree. The delete votes are ignoring GNG policy. If we have multiple independent reviews and scholarly works covering this song it meets our notability threshold for inclusion.4meter4 (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it does not receive "significant coverage", more like passing mentions. All those reliable sources discuss it in the context of either the hours of improvisations, half-songs and spontaneous cover versions played during the Beatles' mostly directionless rehearsals at Twickenham in January 1969, or (as in the Vulture and Far Out listicles) the Beatles' unreleased songs circulating on bootlegs. In other words, it's nowhere on a par in terms of significant coverage with, say, "Thinking of Linking" or "Carnival of Light". And given those two contexts, the subject should be handled in a) an expanded Let It Be album article and/or (and it's something I and others have been suggesting for a while) a new article dedicated to the Beatles' 10 days at Twickenham; or b) an article or list dedicated to the band's recordings available only on bootleg collections. Those are the two areas in which the coverage allows us to approach the subject – per "Presumed" at WP:SIGCOV especially mention there that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The only source focusing on "The Palace of the King of the Birds" is Beatles Bible, which is not only non-RS, but also a work designed to celebrate and explore all things Beatles in exhaustive detail. Sources like that typically elevate in importance almost each and every relation or childhood friend of Lennon and McCartney, for instance, but thankfully that sort of fan-trivia approach has been addressed in part on Wikipedia – eg, Jim and Mary McCartney used to have an article here, simply for being Sir Paul's parents, but the page has since been reduced to a section at Personal relationships of Paul McCartney. It's that sort of discernment that's needed with "Palace ..." – same with "Maureen", a song that Harrison is heard playing on the same 6–7 Jan Twickenham tapes, that gets a similar level of discussion in the Unterberger and Sulpy & Schweighardt books, and that is referred to again in a Harrison biography, from memory, because of the apparent significance of Harrison later having an affair with Maureen Starkey.
  • I've started/written several new Beatles-related articles here and I've still got one or two more planned, starting with the band's last official UK concert, at the 1966 NME Poll-Winners show. But this sort elevation of "Palace ..." should be avoided, in my opinion; it has no encyclopaedic value in its own right. JG66 (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 14:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist. Needs some more time after minimal participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented by Pawnkingthree. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:18, 9 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 Withdrawn. No need to waste the community's time. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 15:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of people named in the Pandora Papers[edit]

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

This is an indiscriminate collection of information with little encyclopedic value, that should be deleted per WP:DEL-REASON #14. The information presented here should be included in the respective biographies of each person that has been named, with an indication of how and why they were named in the leaks. I mean what does it even mean to be named in the leaks? The relevant information here is not the "naming", but the material claims that have been made by the press, e.g. the fact that A.B. seems to be hiding money from the local tax authorities or that C.D. has an offshore shell company. JBchrch talk 14:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 14:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 14:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 14:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 14:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 14:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 14:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What does it mean to be named? The lead of the list seems pretty clear to me: people named in the Pandora Papers as shareholders, directors and beneficiaries of offshore companies. pburka (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly a finite (if large) pool of potential list entries, thus not indiscriminate. RS will report on notable ones, guiding editors on which entries to include. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EvergreenFir. The title sounds a little vague, but the intro spells out what is meant. One might argue whether or not red-linked entries are acceptable, for example, but that's a matter for ordinary editing and the Talk page. XOR'easter (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named in the Panama Papers is any indication, this will be kept, and as a spin-out of material that would potentially be at home in the main article, it's hard to argue. But I'll play devil's advocate a little bit. Here we have a list of just names and titles, included because they were named in a scandalous document, with no additional information or context other than who they are, regardless of whether they're notable or a private individual, regardless of anything that happens because of what's implied, regardless of the legality of the actions involved, etc. From the get-go that sounds like a risky proposition which doesn't seem in line with the spirit of WP:BLP, and potentially an WP:INDISCRIMINATE problem (yes, it's a clear inclusion criteria, but it's also "absolutely every name that appears in a document trove", which doesn't scream discriminate. What I think does make sense is something already done with the Panama Papers (even if it also has a full list): separate articles with prose and context like e.g. Panama Papers (Asia) and the like. IMO with that style of article, we don't also need this, even if we did decide it wasn't indiscriminate. A comment rather than a !vote just to say this is not ideal. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep while the article could use a notice that offshore accounts are not necessarily illegal, the shear size of the investigation would be notable in itself. 150 media partners in 90 countries including the BBC, Guardian, Washington Post, PBS, El Pais. The results of the reports are even more notable. The Czech Prime Minister election was affected, many police investigations announced, new laws proposed. 130 billionaires mentioned, a dozen heads of state, a couple dozen heads of government (all in 5 days - more is coming) - well this is all approximate - I need a scorecard to keep all the players straight. This list is the scorecard we all need. BTW besides the List of people named in the Pandora Papers and the List of people named in the Panama Papers, there's the List of people named in the Paradise Papers. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe Pandora Papers' importance and relevance consists in the identification of people especially in politics, i.e. with a high responsibility to the public and the people. It would not serve anybody's interest to leave out those names or quote just a biased selection in the main article, as "examples". It is also wrong to see it as a mere list, it is a complex linking and funneling page between the Pandora Papers and the biographical articles of the people named in the list. As a matter of course, a fact like this, in a biography of a public figure, must be elaborated on in the biographical articles. If this list was missing, readers would lack an important tool to find relevant info quickly. I also mention similar list with similar purposes which are not debated. Gabel1960 (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: perfect timing. just as reporting from a new, much larger document release begins, renewing interest in the Pandora Papers. Obvious keep. —¿philoserf? (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per @Smallbones: ytpks896 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep But remove unsourced entries. Mukt (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Part of history of some 8 billion people. — Pietadè (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep We need to keep into account the personalities mentioned in the file. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 12:17, 10 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George A. Rothrock[edit]

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

Requirements for WP:PROF don't seem to be met at the moment Imcdc (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Citation counts are low but that's not unusual for history. I added to the article enough reviews of his books to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like a decent pass of WP:AUTHOR, by way of multiple reviews for multiple books each. XOR'easter (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:18, 9 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 delete. Sandstein 10:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Home API[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references Imcdc (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it certainly cannot be too "universal" since searches turn up so few results. Some other observations: there was another unreferenced stub at UHAPI Forum which was merged into this one a year and a half ago. Both are very dated. The claims about "currently" were written in 2005, and never updated for 16 years. It was created by Special:Contributions/Mac who was banned in 2008. Another user Special:Contributions/Debot~enwiki added content to this and a few related articles, then only one edit since then. Only cited source is one paragraph in a book, which cites a web site uhapi.org which seemed to stop updating around 2006 then went defunct in 2008.
A little more digging finds a few mentions, but all around 2005. My guess is that it got subsumed or replaced by CE Linux Forum, which also needs help (I did some of that today). Maybe one or two sentences in that article for historical purposes, not sure it needs a redirect, so still leaning to delete both this and the Forum, or replace with redirect to CELF would be fine. W Nowicki (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regardless of whether the article should be kept or not there is no evidence the nominator has performed a proper WP:BEFORE and searched for references per the WP:NEXIST guideline; this is disruptive. The good faith analysis by W Nowicki seems reasonable; however if the article is what it says on the tin it may have been reasonable attempt at a standard; notable at the time and therefore always notable. There's been a lot of linkrot since 2005. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure who exactly is being accused of disruptive editing? Granted that User:Imcdc went on somewhat of a cleaning spree last Friday, nominating many articles for deletion faster than we can research them. My policy is to try to save three or four articles at least before starting the delete process, but in all the cases so far, it looks like consensus processes were followed. At least starting the discussions does not seem disruptive when these old neglected articles are attempted to be cleaned up. Most might fail to reach consensus, but at least the intent seems sound. There are thousands of "standards" attempts, many of which have grandiose names like this "universal" one. Only standards that exist long enough to have either publications written about them, or be implemented in actual products have a chance to be notable in my opinion. W Nowicki (talk) 17:54, 11 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 delete. Hog Farm Talk 16:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Padgitt[edit]

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

Not enough content or independent references to meet WP:PROF Imcdc (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Citations look a fair bit below meeting WP:NPROF C1. No other clear path to notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The citation record is not strong enough for WP:PROF#C1, no other notability criterion is evident, and the previous discussion's close is not convincing and does not point to anything else that we might be missing (even if we ignore the mention of sources I supposedly supplied when all I actually did at that AfD was deletion sorting). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 15 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced gas[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references Imcdc (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of course any chemist knows oxidation and reduction, but this is a mere statement that some gases are in a reduced form, not a notable thing in itself. Reywas92Talk 14:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you / someone reading this incorporate the "reduced gas" entry into the redox entry? --The Cunctator (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The term "Reduced gas" is actually often found in the context of inerting systems, such as those used on tankers to prevent explosions. However, it seems that its already covered by Reducing atmosphere. Given that its already covered extensively, and the current article is a single sentence, might as well just redirect it to Reducing atmosphere. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 20:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrxBrx: Isn't a reduced gas the opposite of a reducing atmosphere? I can't quite figure out where the def of a reduced gas would fit in that entry. --The Cunctator (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well a reduced gas would be a reducing agent for some other species from what it appears to be in the context of oil and whatnot. Certainly methane would be quite a strong reducing agent if you were transporting rust. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 03:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleteThe article is superfluous and impossible to expand upon. Redirect doesn't seem necessary since it is such a generic and unclear term. --Tautomers(T C) 18:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I don't understand the chemistry definitions to know exactly where this should redirect but it would be silly to delete. --The Cunctator (talk) 01:20, 13 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arla (file system)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references Imcdc (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after digging, I found a couple papers, but they were in "workshops" so did not seem to be at the level of a refereed academic journal. There already was a mention in the Andrew File System article, which is all this merits. Not every student project is notable, only if it gets cited often etc. This has a great example of dated language. The "Today, ...." was added in 2004 by an anonymous editor with no source. 17 years is a very long time in computer software! W Nowicki (talk) 17:39, 11 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 redirect to FTS2000. Sandstein 10:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warner exemption[edit]

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

Not sure if this should warrant it own article per WP:GNG. Imcdc (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:45, 8 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 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 23:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matias Corporation[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Article purpose seems to be just promotional. Imcdc (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does appear to fail WP:ORG. Can't find any sources via a WP:BEFORE search (not even a press release curiously). BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 20:18, 8 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Imcdc (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cemento Cruz Azul[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. No references Imcdc (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and in fact snowball. This is one of the largest cement companies in Mexico and is in fact known all over Latin America though I admit that many may know them only for the team they own but that itself makes them notable. The article does need some citations but I can do that. I doubt anyone will vote for deletion in this case. Also, and I know this bears no real importance but, I must say this article has been here more than a decade without being put on VFD, (and since a time when references were not considered that essencial, hence the no refs before now) so I assume most Wikipedians have no trouble with this company having a article.Antonio GOOOOOLLLL!!! Martin(y?) 18:59, October 8, 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. One of the renowned companies in Mexico in cement industry.[1][2], WP:ORG was established.Mahdiar86 (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.Misasory (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notableJackattack1597 (talk) 14:42, 15 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi Breakout[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references Imcdc (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only results I can find for this show contain the same text as the article, indicating that they are possible mirror sites save for The Movie Database. The article seems to fail WP:NRVE as no results can be pulled up. No citations could be made here even if the topic was notable. As stated by the nominator, this topic seems to completely lack notability. The Council of Seraphim | speak before the Council 13:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Multiple 'broadcasters'...we're dealing with a mediocre concert show disguised as a literal infomercial for a certain cola (though a rather poor one; here's an episode). Nate • (chatter) 02:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To be fair, at the time this article was first created in 2004, our notability standard for television shows basically handed an automatic notability freebie to any television show that verifiably existed at all. But that's not the standard that applies in 2021: today we need to see a certain specific quality and volume of reliable source coverage about the show, of which this show has none. I even searched ProQuest, and got zero results there either. Bearcat (talk) 12:33, 15 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 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 23:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rlab[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references Imcdc (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the original author of the article in 2004. I don't remember writing it, and have no objection to the deletion. The program was mentioned to me as a free alternative to MATLAB by a university lecturer, and I got the wrong impression that it was syntax-compatible. When I realised it was not, I quickly lost interest. It may have been well known in 2004-5, but it hasn't been developed since and I'm not interested in doing the research to establish if it was notable at the time.-gadfium 17:29, 8 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rogan LaBier[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. References are only a brief mention of him. The company he is CEO of doesn't seem notable either. Imcdc (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I don't see any coverage either. Does not look like we have notability here. jp×g 22:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clear vestigial article that should never have been here. PK650 (talk) 23:32, 15 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 delete. Hog Farm Talk 16:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broker Dealer Exchange[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. No references Imcdc (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:26, 8 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 redirect to Bram Moolenaar#Other software. Sandstein 10:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A-A-P[edit]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT. References go back to its own page. Imcdc (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete normally a merge into Bram Moolenaar would make sense, but there is not much here, and a redirect from this odd name would not seem to add any value. W Nowicki (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bram Moolenaar: Barely found anything about the software aside from source 2. A paragraph about it in the target article will suffice. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:00, 13 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akhil Bhartiya Parivar Party[edit]

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

Looks like the promotion of a non notable political party. Lacks significant coverage, hence failed WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Factoring in the removal of a sock, relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After deleting the inappropriate canvassing material, all that's left is WP:CRYSTAL material. I couldn't find any substantial coverage (maybe Abhisekh Raj could link some s/he claims to hvae found?). BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 20:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That was my mistake sir BrxBrx i checked it in google search. Lacks of references and not a notable party. I changed my opinion. I was new to Wikipedia at the time when i posted that now i understood the criterias for a notable Political party. Abhisekh Raj (talk) 00:51, 9 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 redirect to Warrington. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grange Industrial Estate[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGEO. No references Imcdc (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I am inclined to agree this is not noteworthy of an article (individual industrial estates seldom are). The previous AfD back in 2004 was somewhat of a farce by today's standards and nothing has changed with regards to the article in that time. It exists, as do many other estates, and that's about it. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Industrial estates aren't generally notable and it has no sources, isn't an ONS BUA or OS settlement, Books though does return some sources but not really anything that likely establishes notability. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Skipping past false positives like "Langthwaite Grange Industrial Estate", there's nothing that would even approach notability here. –dlthewave ☎ 15:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Warrington, England. I don't see any sources for this worth mentioning in an article. Even confounded with Langthwaite Grange Industrial Estate, there are a mere 32 results, none of which constitute actual coverage. jp×g 21:58, 10 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 keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol level[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references Imcdc (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources are readily available - please do a WP:BEFORE prior to nomination. The foundation paper coining the term [1] has been cited more than 3000 times, and it pops up in text books all over the place (e.g. [3], [4]). Added basic cites to article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the sources that were found and added above; while it was certainly unreferenced at the time of nomination, WP:AfD is not cleanup. jp×g 21:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Newell, A. (1982). "The knowledge level". Artificial intelligence. 18 (1): 87–127.
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. Although I disagree with most of the comments made here, it's clear that this is going nowhere, so given the unanimous "keep" !votes, I am withdrawing this nomination. Randykitty (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Unsolved Questions[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources discussing this journal in-depth. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG". Article dePRODded by article creator after adding 2 references (for a total of 5 plus 2 "further reading"). References are either not independent or just in-passing mentions. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And which one of those is both independent and an in-depth discussion of the journal (as opposed to an article from the journal)? --Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject passes GNG and satisfies WP:NJournals#C3: It is historically important in its subject area, publishing null results. It has been named and described in articles in journals independent of the subject and other media which highlight the subject's importance. Being indexed in any database is not obligatory. --Fippe (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I gingerly suggest that it is basically impossible for aa 10-year-old journal to be "historically important"... --Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I gingerly suggest that users read WP:NJournals if they are going to use it as an reason to delete an article: "Journal age is not a consideration here. While there is a correlation between age and notability, simply having published academic works for a long period of time is not considered sufficient to satisfy C3. The reverse is also true, a recently established journal is not necessarily disqualified by this." --Fippe (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historical purpose" refers to a history. A 10-year-old journal has hardly any history. Being the first to cover a certain subject is not a "historical purpose". Having published, say, Einstein's special relativity theory, that's an historical purpose. --Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is important that negative or null results are reported, but they are rarely reported in other journals.--Bduke (talk) 00:19, 9 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 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 00:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M³AAWG[edit]

M³AAWG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think we need to apply WP:TNT to this. At this point you might as well just call it a written advertisement. Not to mention most of the references are going back to its own webpage. Think its easier just to start over again. Imcdc (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources, promotional and advertising content.Mahdiar86 (talk) 23:05, 8 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 snow keep — consensus is that she passes WP:PROF#C3 at the very least. Multiple comments to the effect that an adequate WP:BEFORE had not been done, and that WP:BASIC may also be met. XOR'easter (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Chen Wenxin[edit]

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

Seems like Self Advertising Or Paid Article. in Honours and awards section 2001 Member of the the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Checked the db here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Chinese_Academy_of_Sciences and didn't found the source. CentDog🐶 ( Woof  • Dig ) 11:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. You really didn't see her name? Her name at the paragraph "Division of Life Sciences and Medicine#2001". The first name on the list is Chen Wenxin.--Huangdan2060 (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:02, 8 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 keep. The delete arguments have been countered by the locating of significant coverage via the internet archive. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taste (software)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references. Imcdc (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The word taste is pretty common, but I could not see any any notable coverage after several searches. No major coverage, delete per WP:N. Ode+Joy (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • try harder - this product was well covered at the time in all of the Mac mags - I recall it in MacWEEK IIRC. I find it difficult to believe no one can find coverage with a little more effort. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added some magazine refs on the back of Maury Markowitz's comment (admittedly the same magazine), which merely just offers some basic info about its capabilities. I am not necessarily suggesting this demonstrates notability, that is for others to decide. Ode+Joy's comment about "taste" being a common term is a fair one, though this in turn means any potential online references may be incredibly hard to find and thus it's not unreasonable to imagine many offline sources exist, especially given this seems to have been published 30 years ago. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I recall a sidebar in MacWEEK (which in that mag is a "full article") as well as longer capsule reviews in one of the others, either MacWorld or more likely MacUser. Unfortunately I'm not aware of a searchable index of either that is complete and trying it in Google, as noted above, is an exercise in frustration. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question 1: how many people are still using this software? Is it dead, alive, or in a retirement home? The answer should affect the outcome. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ode+Joy: That is a very ill-advised perspective to take. Something doesn't have to still exist or be in use to be able to have an article. An article's subject matter should be judged on its credibility and whether it has, at some point in time, been notable. For this article, I genuinely have no idea. It seems like it was a "taster" version of a bigger package, though whether it was the first to do something, or the first to feature something, I don't know. You can't make a judgement based on whether many are still using it 30+ years on, which clearly isn't the case. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* Well, in my view, there are more important things to work on that software that has gathered mold. So I will bid this issue farewell. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those are just passing mentions in ads, but the last one is indeed a real mention. Hopefully this URL takes you to it, it's a capsule review, but very typical of the ones I recall from this era. It's certainly enough for one NOTE checkbox. BTW, did you do anything special to get the search to work? I tried it before and didn't get a single MacUser, but here's a bunch. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly I went to ProQuest first to get an index of articles that mention DeltaPoint and Taste, finding several from Macworld and MacUser and one from Byte. From there I searched for <magazine's title> + <issue date> and/or <issue number> provided by PQ into the Internet Archive search bar and found scans of the issues that have those articles, which I've cited in the Reception section. If you don't have access to PQ, putting double-quotes around the search terms e.g. "deltapoint" "taste" into IA's "Search text contents" brings up those scans* along with hundreds more than the link I gave above, but indeed a lot only mention the software in ads, and some are duplicate scans. Clicking on relevant categories in the "Collection" sidebar narrows it down greatly but there's still a bit of spelunking involved.
* Well, except the Byte scan whose OCR mangled "DeltaPoint" into being "DeltaPoinfs" and "DeltaPoini"; had to search for that issue manually given the PQ info. DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW CLOSE User DigitalIceAge's excellent sleuthing resulted in three major reviews being added and easily meeting NOTE. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:29, 13 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 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 11:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Mountain Bikes[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. References return to own website. Promotional tone. Imcdc (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Incomplete marketing brochure. All that remains is to add prices and link to order online. Delete per WP:PROMO. Ode+Joy (talk) 12:39, 8 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 merge to Nihonjin gakkō. Daniel (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese School Dhaka[edit]

Japanese School Dhaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Japanese School Dhaka (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
ダッカ日本人学校 (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary and unreliable source. No notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (schools) guideline. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!【Click to Discuss】 14:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Schools for children of the rich (in this case, expatriate and diplomatic families) tend to be better documented than other schools. Did you search in Japanese? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are two sources in Japanese, courtesy of CiNii (Japanese academic database), listed with "ダッカ日本人学校" in the title:
  • I have not seen any evidence that the first has any connection to the school. The second is a report of a person from a school in Japan (豊橋市立福岡小学校) who worked in the Dhaka Japanese School.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither source provides significant coverage of the school. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Not convinced that sources are likely to exist. The fact that the Japanese wiki is lacking an article is telling. Additionally, we need to uphold the RFC at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that schools must show significant coverage in independent refs in order to be kept.4meter4 (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @4meter4: Do you read Japanese? Have you read the sources? I can't see how neither source has Wikipedia:Significant coverage (""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.") since the name of the school is in the title of each source, that means the school is the main topic, which means by definition the source must provide significant coverage. Working in a Japanese school can be freely read online, and without a doubt gives SIGCOV. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has received significant coverage in Japanese sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kudos to WhisperToMe for finding the three sources in Japanese. The 1979 source says when it was established, who the first teacher was, the initial number of students, what the facilities and teaching supplies were like, when the second teacher arrived, etc. It is significant coverage. The 2005 source and the 2014 source are offline, so I don't believe any of us have read them. WhisperToMe's argument that from their titles and length they are likely to contain significant coverage is persuasive. However, 4meter4 makes the point that WP:GNG and WP:ORG call for independent sources to establish notability. The 1979 source is written by the school's first teacher. The 2005 source, according to WhisperToMe, is written by former employees. And one of the authors of the 2014 source, Toyomichi Maruta, is the principal of the school (or was as of 2013).[5][6] So none of the sources is truly arms length. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nihonjin gakkō as an alternative to deletion. There isn't much content to merge, but that article's list of schools is a good place to record its name in Japanese, year it was established, and what sources are available. Although the resulting redirect would lead to little information specific to this campus, it would give readers useful information about this specialized type of school that they otherwise might not find. I can't recommend keep because of the absence of independent sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eastmain, WhisperToMe, 4meter4, and Jackattack1597: There hasn't been further discussion since I noted last week that none of the Japanese sources are truly independent, all having been written by former or current employees of the school. Is everyone still committed to their original position? --Worldbruce (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Sadly I do think Worldbruce made some good points in his rebuttal, so I think a merge may be the best I can hope for. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think Worldbruce's analysis has strengthened the case for deletion. However, I am ok with a merge to Nihonjin gakkō as an WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I also agree with Worldbruce that we should merge this with Nihonjin_gakkō.Advait (talk) 09:19, 21 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ski jumping sling[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Link doesn't work. Imcdc (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage of the invention to be found. Fails GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I couldn't find anything that could save this article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. In Norway, a neighboring country of Finland, where ski jumping is also highly esteemed, the invention was subject to at least one newswire in February 1978. It seems ephemeral though. I can't find any lasting impact of the sling as a training gear. Geschichte (talk) 16:14, 10 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorescent multilayer card[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references. Imcdc (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Marketing piece, and obvious copyright breach. The text is copied from the Free Journal. No sources. They did not even bother to do a proper promotional piece. Must go away.Ode+Joy (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fluorescent Multilayer Disc, which is a thing that actually existed. I am having big trouble finding any sources talking about a "fluorescent multilayer card" (and it's likely that a physical one was never made). jp×g 20:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one entirely, since there is nothing to merge and the redirect would probably not be useful in my opinion. Doing some quick research, there is a story that is interesting to tell. Apparently the company behind it and the disk got re-invented several times under interesting circumstances. Maybe the tens of millions they went through are small peanuts by today's standards, but at least I find it interesting and more sources for the company than the technology. I would lean to merging Fluorescent Multilayer Disc and even Digital Multilayer Disk perhaps too, starting with Constellation 3D since it has some sources (I just added a few, and there are more for the company since it was briefly public, its chairman was arrested, etc.). At the least, we could work on 3D optical data storage, but if anything, that overall article could be trimmed down a bit to reduce the crystal-ball language. W Nowicki (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yet more interesting. It turns out the person behind the physics of these technologies already had an article. Eugene Levich was a refusenik in the Soviet Union, who got a free ticket to Siberia, before lobbying from the international community allowed him to emigrate! His article (and one on his father Veniamin Levich needed some TLC too. Still think a pure delete of this one is in order. It seems the card was never even demonstrated. As far as they got was a trademark and some press releases. W Nowicki (talk) 20:00, 14 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 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 11:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Love Radio Show[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The source only talks about the show that moved to weekend timeslot and a YouTube video. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:01, 08 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:01, 08 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. The two existing sources are unreliable: [7] is an entertainment news article from ABS-CBN News which is closely connected to the subject, hence non-independent. [8] is a YouTube link to an episode of the subject, which may fail WP:RS (see also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#YouTube). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:09, 14 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaylord Dingler[edit]

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

I'm somewhat tempted to G3 this as an elaborate hoax: all I can find are low-quality YouTube videos of this alleged person from 2008. The article content doesn't inspire confidence that this so-called "stand-up comic" isn't a ruse. though given how old the article is it might well be worthwhile to bring to AfD. There's a lot of unsourced content in this (apparent) BLP. With regards to notability, I can't find anything on "Gaylord Dingler" when using newspapers.com or google news search. This article subject fails WP:BASIC, WP:ENTERTAINER, and to a certain extent the entirety of WP:V. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom; quality reliable, secondary sources are practically non-existent. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 0 hits in newspapers.com, so I agree with the nominator. Geschichte (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first version looks like the groundwork for a mockumentary then "currently in production"; fifteen years later, it's no more convincing. -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Either this is a hoax, or it's a BLP violation so egregious it's well over the line into outright libel. There is a lone secondary source which in turn was picked up by the BBC, but it looks strongly to me like someone laying the groundwork for the mockumentary and the BBC (not for the first time) cut-and-pasting something that sounds interesting without bothering to factcheck for themselves. ‑ Iridescent 11:50, 11 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 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 12:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CIMA Festival[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references Imcdc (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete A few notes sang near Grosseto do not amount to notability - pun intended. This is an abandoned obscure festival. The location is known because of Raffaella Carrà not because of this festival. Delete. Ode+Joy (talk) 12:53, 8 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Takeo Kikuchi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references. Promotional tone. Imcdc (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:52, 8 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Min Jiayin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Little coverage Imcdc (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I listed this in the women deletion-sorting list based on a pronoun in an earlier version of the article, but can we even verify that Min is female? A book source [17] states that Min is a friend of the author and uses male pronouns for Min. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:NPROF. This seems to be a different person than the one previously discussed that appears in multiple Google Books results. --hroest 19:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If one could verify that (she?) is a member of the CASS, I think it would be a keep per WP:NPROF#3 - the CASS is a highly prestigious and selective institution. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 20:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Ah, my search-fu is strong today. Found his bio on CASS, which has his name for further searching. 闵家胤 retired in 2003, which explains why it's hard to find out anything more recent than decades old books, but he was active far more recently blogging. Seems quite notable to me.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:A5A4:BDE5:CB0F:BB5B (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even the findings of the above "search-fu" is not enough as extensive use of his blog would violate WP:PRIMARY. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 02:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The blog mention was mostly intended to answer the obvious question about his activities since retiring. As it was almost 20 years ago one might wonder if he had died, and where the information on that was. But seems he retired youngish and is still going well. The blog was not used as a source, I added it as an external link. There are other perhaps more reliable sources on his activities since retiring (talks e.g.) which might be used to expand the article.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:7589:82DE:89D0:39E (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPROF.Advait (talk) 09:22, 21 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 delete. Without prejudice to recreation IF substantive sources are located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Corporation Primary School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references. Imcdc (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a listed building per WP:GEOFEAT, as long as sources can be found (the current one is a dead link). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although listed, it was delisted, and demolished. There doesn't seem to be any information available on it. There's not much point in having an article that says nothing except that a non-notable school once occupied a building that might have been interesting but got demolished without anyone being interested enough to write anything about it anywhere. If sources surface, and someone's interested, it could be recreated; there is nothing of value here at the moment. Elemimele (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Elemimele. I am unable to find anything in old newspapers or any kind of reliable material to even try and expand the current article. The fact this held listed building status does not in itself afford notability to the school which was once occupying that building, itself now no longer existing. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, just because a listed building has been delisted then demolished doesn't mean that it is not wikinotable, but in this case it was a grade II, one of 370th, so more then once was listed is required? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple: It being a former listed building does not necessarily afford it notability either. Listed status implies a degree of architectural significance to protect from demolition or significant change, but not explicitly that it is a notable construction. I have not found anything to suggest otherwise and Necrothesp's WP:SOURCESEXIST rationale isn't looking particularly credible without any substantive referencing. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
agree that sources are paramount (not found in this case). Coolabahapple (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I did not put forward a WP:SOURCESEXIST rationale. I said it would be notable if sources exist. I can't find any, but someone else may be able to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:55, 12 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kwan Ho Kwak[edit]

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

Kwan Ho Kwak does not meet WP:MMABIO criteria, as he only has 2 fights in a top tier promotion out of the required 3. He also fails WP:GNG, as his fight coverage is through routine sporting report. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 04:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet any WP notability criteria. He doesn't have 3 top tier fights, his highest Fightmatrix ranking ever was 62nd, and all of the coverage can be classified as routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NMMA for not having 3 fights under top tier promotion and unlikely the subject could meet the requirement anytime soon as the subject has not been fighting since 2017. The subject also fails GNG requirements for records are merely sport routine reports. Cassiopeia talk 00:00, 13 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 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. North America1000 09:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neville Levy[edit]

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

Not seeing anything that satisfies WP:BIO. No substantial sources, so no WP:SIGCOV either. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:29, 8 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 keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanlé Sory[edit]

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

This guy in a museum “modern art museum” they let everyone have wall space. Neither of the two museum s are the most prestigious in the United States Reason Rrmmll22 (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets criteria #4 for WP:NARTIST, has work included in two verifiable and notable museum collections. Meets WP:GNG by way of SIGCOV in RS's found online in a BEFORE search. These can be added to the article to improve it. It's a clear pass for meeting our notability requirements. Netherzone (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Specifically, 2a, for a vexatious nomination. This is retaliatory AfD as I had nominated Michael Finnerty. It's a bit sad. Anyway, notable per multiple high quality museum collections, and by the extremely high quality, in-depth coverage in sources like CNN, New Yorker, Vogue, The Guardian, The New Republic and The Economist, to name a few. The Museum of Modern Art in New York, which is in, is probably the most notable art museum in the United States. --- Possibly ☎ 05:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 05:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 05:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this guy, Possibly, seems to think I nominated it out of retaliation that’s not true. He even went to the extent to say a posting on my talk page about my outspokenness towards local politicians is connected to him somehow. The woman is in the MoMA archives she is not on display. Her work is in a file somewhere at the museum. They take any artwork as they are trying to make a collection for studies. Michael Finnerty, in New Zealand is just as accomplished——- him and this woman are about the same. If offered a sample of his work I am sure they would gladly add it to their collection. They have also added that being in a collection at a small regional liberal arts college, Skidmore is significant. --Rrmmll22 (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rrmmll22 double !voting is not permitted. You need to strike your second !vote. Please read the guidelines on how the deletion process works, and study up on our notability criteria. The artist is in the permanent collection of MoMA, one of the most prestigious and rigorously vetted in the world. Museums like MoMA can have tens of thousands of works in their collections and only a fraction is ever on display at one time. I'd also recommend learning more about how the acquisition process works at various types of institutions; why would you think that MoMA "takes any artwork"? Your arguments have no merit. Netherzone (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Struck double !vote. FYI, Sanlé Sory is not a woman. There's also a ton of WP:reliable sources, in addition to three museum collections. See also WP:BEFORE.--- Possibly ☎ 02:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked on MoMAs website and they have 26000 artists in their collection that is a lot of artists. Then I typed in someone I went to high school with and they were in the collection. They take a lot of people into their collection and then display the best. The fact I am getting at is michael Finnerty is just as accomplish as this woman/guy whatever gender they are. An art museum in New Zealand is never going to get the fame that one in NYC gets, unfortunately. MoMA is apparently according to The website interested in quantity notating they have 200,000 works and being totally inclusive. I am sure some artists are filtered out such as if you sent your kids work but many are let in. Plus I only voted once. Furthermore, if you read their guidelines at Wikipedia the delete is not based on a count but rather the discussion. They even say don’t tally votes etc. So there could be 5 keeps and 2 deletes and it will get deleted because they had a good argument/discussion. I honestly have never Been to the MoMA. I have been to the Met in NYC.Rrmmll22 (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should go to MoMA next time you are in NYC. According to their site, in 2017-18, "three million visitors from 56 countries" visited it. That works out to about 10,000 visitors a day, or about 1,000 people an hour coming through the doors. It's kind of a big deal. It is extremely prestigious. Also, if you want to make arguments about the Michael Finnerty page, this is not the place to do that. Do it on that AfD. --- Possibly ☎ 05:29, 13 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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeongmee Yoon[edit]

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

This guy is only in few places in one country. Not worthy of recognition. Reason Rrmmll22 (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A quick WP:BEFORE search shows that this artist has shown in numerous international museums and gallerys. The two museum collections are verifiable (and I improved the referencing) therefore she meets criteria #4 of WP:NARTIST, and there is enough coverage of her online to meet WP:GNG. Rrmmll22, you only have made 150 total edits here before this nom, it may be a good idea to become familiar with WP notability criteria before nominating articles for deletion - just a friendly suggestion. The article is a short stub and can be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her works was mentioned in The New York Times and other reliable sources. That's not enough for passing WP:GNG?Mahdiar86 (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Specifically, 2a, for a vexatious nomination. This is a retaliatory AfD, after I nominated Michael Finnerty. The bad faith extends to another AFD for an obviously notable artist that was launched by the nominator in retaliation, Sanlé Sory. Yoon is in two museum collections and her work has been widely covered. She's not a guy, btw. --- Possibly ☎ 05:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close - clearly a vexatious and WP:POINTY nomination. St★lwart111 06:58, 14 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Finnerty[edit]

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

GNG and NARTIST fail. He is in two collections. One is a hospital in the UK, and the other is the Owaka Museum and Catlins Information Centre Wahi Kahuika. Neither collection points to what the multiple collections clause of WP:NARTIST is looking for: being recognized by notable museums. I saw nothing in a search for exhibition reviews. This is a new article, but it does not change the fact that he is obviously not notable by our standards. --- Possibly ☎ 03:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: I didn't know that. However one would imagine that if it has a distinguished collection, that would be mentioned by our article on it? My general point is that the two collections are not in art museums. The Owaka museum says that "Included in the collection is a wide variety of items relating to the social and natural history of the area." The a Royal Hospital source is better than I thought, given your pointer, but we are still not at the point where his work is included in several notable museums or galleries. Are you talking about the Royal Hospital Chelsea Museum described here, rather than the Royal Hospital Chelsea? --- Possibly ☎ 03:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 03:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 03:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 03:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added another museum and I think this guy does not know his British culture that well that royal hospital is where the prime minister Margaret thatcher is buried. Very prestigious. As a British Canadian subject one should know this place. This painter is very popular in New Zealand. He is worthy of an article on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrmmll22 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rrmmll22: Welcome. We generally avoid "this guy" comments here, and focus on the content and not the editor. You might be right on my knowledge of British military hospitals, but I know what makes a notable artist quite well. A military pensioner's hospital and a local culture museum do not meet our WP:NARTIST standard for a notable artist. There is not enough secondary coverage (reviews of exhibitions, books, critical commentary etc) to meet our broader standard of WP:GNG. --- Possibly ☎ 03:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think in a country there are local artists and there are world renowned. I am not British one bit I am American and we have his paintings in the United States. But this painter had quite the reputation on the South Island of New Zealand. Perhaps New Zealanders can weigh in. I think he is in a museum in Christchurch too.--Rrmmll22 (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rrmmll22: we do cover world renowned artists, but we base it on sources and not personal knowledge. I'll poke around and see if I can find the Christchurch museum source. This discussion has been listed in the NZ deletion sort, so no doubt New Zealanders will pipe in. --- Possibly ☎ 04:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
we are trying to arrive at sources eventually. I agree his artwork is not the best. I have no personal connection to the artist. I do own 3 of his works though.--Rrmmll22 (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rrmmll22: I checked the Canterbury Museum and the Christchurch Art Gallery's collections. He is not listed. A further search showed only a paid obituary for the same year of death, but it is for someone who was 27 years younger. --- Possibly ☎ 04:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know who that guy is someone else with the same name check out bid bud on the rear of his work he puts his info like birthdate etc. | https://www.bidbud.co.nz/3263873852 --Rrmmll22 (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is good information,but we cannot use any of it as it is on an Auction site, which is not a reliable source. I would also imagine that if he is selling his paintings at his own gallery, he is the one who wrote the text on the back of the painting, which was then copied to the auction listing. I have also checked the Tepapa Museum, the Auckland Art Gallery and the Dose Art Museum, and he is not in their collections. --- Possibly ☎ 04:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rrmmll22 if you own three of his works, then you do have a connection to the artist - a financial one. If you purchased his work, you made a financial investment in it. The works can be sold in the future for a possible profit. It is probably best to let the deletion discussion unfold naturally, because it could be a conflict of interest WP:COI for you to !vote. Netherzone (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone, I do not think that being on this website would effect the value of a piece of artwork nor do I think a collector or expert would reference this site in the course of business. Regardless, we know this artist is in one “ distinguished collection” the royal museum and in one other that probably has some reputation. Furthermore, this artist always has something being sold at auction. Either eBay or other auction. --Rrmmll22 (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He only exhibited two times in a military hospital and a local museum taht wont make him notable. fails WP:NARTIST·Mahdiar86 (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreliable sources. Not in any major collections. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ebay sales or auction results do not contribute to notabilty; the collections are not art museums. A search does not reveal reviews or articles, or other expected results for an artist of note. Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Ebay listings and the like aren't considered significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Vexatious and retaliatory nominations elsewhere only help to strengthen the case. St★lwart111 07:01, 14 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 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 03:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking Glass Workshop[edit]

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

Non-notable art collective and music label which only worked with one notable band. Fails WP:NORG. Mottezen (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Still too small and obscure, without major coverage. If they make it big in 2 years, then can get a page. For now no go per WP:N. Ode+Joy (talk) 12:56, 8 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Palacios[edit]

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

His professional career consists of 3 appearances in the third tier 2016 USL season. Whilst his very brief professional career might create a presumption of passing WP:GNG, there is a growing consensus among the Wikipedia community that GNG actually needs to be demonstrated in borderline cases such as this one. Searches in Google News came back with very little. The only non-WP:ROUTINE content I found was this article where he was named the best athlete at his high school. GauchoDude (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 22:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes NFOOTY and GNG in my opinion, and three pro appearances and a 5 year athletic playing career is enough for page to be kept.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'd love to see your GNG sources when you have a chance. GauchoDude (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think people who have played in low tier American leagues definitely need to pass GNG and this one doesn't. NFOOTY alone is insufficient. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article about former footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG (the single OC Register article about his high school soccer career doesn't come close - nor do the match reports, tryout or coaching announcements). Any presumption of notability from NFOOTBALL is invalid. Jogurney (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Coverage for Palacios, going chronologically through his career: high school ([19] [20], plus the article previously found by the nom), youth soccer with Chivas USA ([21] [22]), call-ups to the United States men's national under-18 soccer team ([23] [24]), Cal Poly ([25] [26] [27] [28]), Ventura County Fusion ([29] [30]), signing with Portland Timbers 2 ([31]). Additionally, as per his LinkedIn profile, Palacios is now in the United States Army and scored the winning goal at the 2019 Armed Forces Sports Men’s Soccer Championship, as covered [32] [33]. Taken together with the background already on the page, I think there's enough coverage to meet GNG. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of those sources are significant coverage. I don't see how the article satisfies the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coverage is trivial. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- lomrjyo (✉ • 📝) 03:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, played professional association football, even if it wasn't at the highest level. SecretlyQuebecois (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC) is a CU-confirmed sock. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per WP:NFOOTBALL, playing professional association football does not guarantee notability, but is only presumed. The established consensus is that players with such a small playing background must meet GNG, as must anything to warrant a standalone article per WP:NOTE. As such, I would contend this keep vote is fundamentally flawed. If this individual cannot meet GNG, regardless of their former playing status, then the article should be removed as has been done previously. GauchoDude (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A contested 2016 prod carries no weight. I find it odd that the circumstances of 2016 "removal" were not provided. Nfitz (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - coverage presented thus far lacks substance and there's nothing that we can build a meaningful biography from. Soccer career to date is not enough for us to believe, beyond reasonable doubt, that the required significant coverage should exist in offline WP:RS. No prejudice against recreating at a later date if his career suddenly takes an upward turn. For now, fails GNG, which is all that should matter Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets NFOOTBALL with professional football appearances. As noted above there's enough coverage over his career to write an article. Nfitz (talk) 23:44, 15 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 redirect to Kadamtali Thana. Deor (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. K. High School and College[edit]

A. K. High School and College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary sources. Doesn't meet WP:GNG guideline. No notability. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!【Click to Discuss】 07:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!【Click to Discuss】 07:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could someone please search for Bengali-language references that could be added to this article? Searching for references in the appropriate language is an important part of WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)</noinclude>[reply]
  • Redirect to settlement Shyampur Thana Kadamtali Thana and create an education section there listing the school. Searches of the usual types, including in Bengali, found mostly routine trivial mentions, similar to the single independent source in the article. Arguably an article based mainly on third-party sources could be constructed from: [34][35][36][37][38], which describe a father allegedly being beaten by school employees for refusing to pay a $1-2 fee, principal Selim Bhuiyan being jailed for providing fake Ph.D. degrees, him being jailed for allegedly embezling $370,000 from the school, his political cronys staging a protest calling for his release, and the Anti-Corruption Commission suing him for concealing illegally amassed wealth. But those stories are more about former Principal Selim Bhuiyan than about A. K. High School and College. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've altered my recommended redirect target because it turns out that the college is not in Shyampur Thana but in Kadamtali Thana.[39] There is already an education section there that mentions it along with other colleges in the neighborhood. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to Shyampur Thana .4meter4 (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merging a list of one (rather dubious) school into a political division article is WP:UNDUE. If someone wants to create a proper education section in that article then fair enough, but as it is, merging would be a poor decision for an AFD. SpinningSpark 18:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources presented above amount to substantial coverage of the school itself. If no additional sources can be found, the subject is not notable under GNG. No compelling reasons for redirecting have been given. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect, merge, or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mlb96 (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect. The reason in WP:Redirects that comes closest to this case is that sub-topics of a larger article can redirect to said article. However, one specific school in a district is far from a sub-topic of that district's article; I'm pretty sure we don't typically create a redirect for a non-notable organisation to the place in which that organisation is located, and arguably doing so would be promotional. PJvanMill)talk( 00:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching to redirect per below - if there really is consensus for creating such redirects for schools, then sure. I will say I have some reservations about this, it seems like it might be a bit of a slippery slope (i.e. might be expanded to any non-notable organisation). PJvanMill)talk( 10:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The edit notice on this page admonishes us to consider redirect is an alternative to deletion. The "lowest level locality" has long been judged a suitable redirection target for schools, as documented in the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES section of the explanatory supplement to deletion policy. The guidelines for writing about settlements encourage having an education section. There is one in Kadamtali Thana, and it lists this college among others. Ideally there would be sparkling prose about the colleges, but it's a stub. If we delete, and a reader searches for "A. K. High School and College", they will get two results: Kadamtali Thana and List of schools in Bangladesh. Leaving a redirect would have the benefit of taking the reader straight to the page with the most info about their search term, even if today that info is only the locality where the college is located and the names of other colleges in the area. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The SCHOOLOUTCOMES page itself points out that the RFC that stopped secondary schools from being automatically notable also added SCHOOLOUTCOMES to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions because it "promotes circular reasoning". I did consider redirecting but rejected your original target for the reasons I gave above. Your amended target, however, is more acceptable. SpinningSpark 06:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to redirect per WorldBruce's amended target. @MrsSnoozyTurtle and PJvanMill: did you miss that the target had been changed or are you still at delete? SpinningSpark 06:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for the ping, Spinningspark. Indeed, SCHOOLOUTCOMES itself makes it clear that we should not lean on it for an AfD decision. With the new target and Worldbruce's above comments, I will change my !vote to redirect to Kadamtali Thana. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kadamtali Thana. As above, thanks for the ping, SpinningSpark. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and thank you for the coolest username I've see this year. SpinningSpark 19:13, 9 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 keep. Michig (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Cong[edit]

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

This person lacks significant coverage from reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. ZLEA T\C 02:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ZLEA T\C 02:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ZLEA T\C 02:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 岳怀让 (2019-03-16). 蒋晨锐; 张艳 (eds.). ""飞鲨"舰载机总设计师孙聪院士履新中国航空研究院院长" [Academician Sun Cong, Chief Designer of "Flying Shark" carrier aircraft, serves as the Dean of the New China Academy of Aeronautics and Astronautics]. The Paper (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "According to the official resume, Sun Cong was born in February 1961, a member of the Communist Party of China, a researcher, a doctorate in aircraft design from Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and an academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering. Sun Cong successively served as deputy chief designer, deputy director, director, deputy secretary of the party committee, chief designer, and deputy chief engineer of the group company of Shenyang Aircraft Design and Research Institute. Since August 2016, he has served as deputy director of the group company's science and technology committee. In addition, according to previous reports by The Paper, Sun Cong, who graduated from Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, is also the chief designer of the J-11, J-15 "Flying Shark" carrier aircraft, and the FC-31 "Falcon Eagle", alongside Yang Wei and Tang Changhong. Known as the "Three Masters of Aviation". According to a report from CCTV.com in September 2013, CCTV's "Face to Face" program had an exclusive interview with Sun Cong ..."

    2. 邱伊扬, ed. (2018-05-25). "孙聪：军工战线上的"航空人"" [Sun Cong: "Aviator" on the military front] (in Chinese). NetEase. Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "He has won the special prize of the National Science and Technology Progress Award and the National May 1st Labor Medal. Member of the 11th and 12th National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. Served as chief designer of many key models such as F-15 and Falcon."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sun Cong (simplified Chinese: 孙聪; traditional Chinese: 孫聰) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard Both of the sources you list above are known Chinese propaganda agencies, which hardly count as reliable sources, let alone independent of the subject. - ZLEA T\C 14:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Umm! ZLEA How The Paper (newspaper) was Chinese propaganda? How do you know? According to ? Pls provide source to support that the media is propaganda. Your opinion clearly based on WP:IDONTLIKE. VocalIndia (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
VocalIndia How about this source (which calls The Paper "state-owned/funded" or similar multiple times) taken straight from The Paper (newspaper)? While the source praises The Paper for being less biased than most Chinese state-owned media, it still makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party has control over it. Plus, the fact that The Paper (newspaper) is categorized under Category:Chinese propaganda organisations, Category:Chinese Communist Party newspapers, and Category:State media should be a major red flag that it is not reliable. Even New York Times states that it is overseen by the Communist Party.
I will kindly ask you to retract your claim that my opinion is based on WP:IDONTLIKE. - ZLEA T\C 03:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cunards sources are sufficient to meet WP:BASIC. I disagree with the noms argument that the sources are unreliable because they are state run. Firstly, the second source is posted by NetEase, a private company. Secondly, being state run alone does not make them unreliable, there are several state run sources on WP:RSP like Xinhua and China Daily that are perfectly acceptable to use in most non controversial circumstances, and this person is not a controversial subject (and if he was, he would have coverage in Western sources which makes this issue moot) Jumpytoo Talk 03:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Biased nomination. The user who nominated it for deletion is not being here to build an encyclopedia. This article meets WP:BASIC and the nomination is clearly based on WP:IDONTLIKE. Satrar (talk) 13:27, 14 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 keep. North America1000 09:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lü Jie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The single reference doesn't even work. Imcdc (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found by User:Cunard showing that the subject passes WP:GNG. VocalIndia (talk) 02:44, 13 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Man Camp[edit]

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

non-notable film, no significant coverage, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 00:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find anything about the film except plot summaries and castlists of IMDb quality (i.e. non-WP:RS). I could also find nothing worthwhile under the alternative titles Man Up and The Brazilian. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.
Note: not to be confused with the 2019 film of the same name (1, 2, 3), which looks equally WP:NN. Narky Blert (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty obscure movie, fails WP:N. How many people see these movies? 25? 35? Not notable at all. Ode+Joy (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The use of viewership is not a viable deletion argument, as there are many unreleased and/or lost films that have articles which probably have a very small amount of people who have actually seen it. Coverage of films is what matters, not how many people have seen it. You should avoid using this in your arguments in the future. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:09, 11 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 merge to Portal Stories: Mel. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prism Studios[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, as the only two non-primary sources do not directly deal with the subject of the article (cf. WP:NCORP § Significant coverage of the company itself). I could only find one independent source that directly deals with the company, which is the creator of the article's blog. The small amount of info on the company could easily be included in Portal Stories: Mel, as that is their only notable work. ― novov t c 01:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ― novov t c 01:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ― novov t c 01:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:30, 8 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 speedy delete. Was deleted as G4 but this is not justified. It can be justified as an A7 so I am leaving it deleted and closing the discussion accordingly. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Fersko[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable DJ. BEFORE turns up nothing usable save for an in-depth Mixmag article (string: "Jake Fersko"). Clash and ID-Vice both have articles about him, but both also have an identical article under a named author and under different headlines (Clash vs. ID-Vice) and so I cannot consider those outlets as usable given the obvious questions of editorial oversight and plagiarism raised. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's references are insufficient to establish notability. newspapers.com has nothing about him. Google searching returns little to indicate notability.PopePompus (talk) 00:54, 8 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giving Is Living[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BK. No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quite laughable. They did not even bother to add a single source after creating the sources section. A half baked PR attempt. Fails multiple criteria, notability, promo, etc. Ode+Joy (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete couldn't find any source. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:52, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_October_8&oldid=1050536809"