Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 12	September 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lavanya Vemsani[edit]

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

WP:NACADEMIC is not met. Two monographs (one one-paragraph review for each - 1 & 2) and an edited volume (two reviews - 3 & 4). About 20 citations in 15 years of academics.

To be elected as the Vice President of "Ohio Academy of History" is not a notable act either and that she was elected as one, instills little confidence about the organization. Apart from this, she is involved with fringe Hindutva propaganda which might have earned her some media-coverage and passage of WP:GNG (c.f. Rajiv Malhotra) but sadly, that is not the case either.TrangaBellam (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: please be BLP careful with throwing fringe about. It appears she recently received a Fullbright award, the first ever for a Shawnee State University professor, so there is some recognition here. While certainly not a PROF-C1 pass, GNG is plausible given coverage such as this in the Deccan Chronicle.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sufficiently acquainted with Indian historiography and her work to make such determinations.
  Thousands of Fulbrights are given every year: they prove nothing. GNG is plausible but not possible, as of now. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete clearly fails WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR with relatively little recognition or impact of her work. NPROF#8 would apply if the journal on which she is chief editor were a major journal in the field, but it clearly is not (actually it seems defunct, with only a single issue in 2018 and no further issues since). --hroest 09:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NPROF. Human interest sections on the Deccan Chronicle tend to suffer from a predominance of undisclosed paid news stories so I don't see her passing WP:BASIC either. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 KFNX. ✗plicit 23:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Techedge Radio[edit]

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

No reliable sources found on a WP:BEFORE. Article fails WP:NRADIO. Non notable radio show. Sreeram Dilak 15:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak

15:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak

15:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak

15:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak

15:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: No reliable sources are cited. If this was patrolled or approved, the user involved needs to be banned. Multi7001 (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLAR to KFNX. (If you won't do it now please give me a heads-up in a few days and I'll do it.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KFNX. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KFNX as WP:ATD. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Matt Darey. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Tribe[edit]

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

Group only recorded about five different songs, with one ("Gamemaster") being remixed and re-released ad nauseam on repetitive compilations. Various releases of that song reached mid-level positions on the UK Singles chart: [1] Regardless, I can find no reliable media coverage of that song or the group itself, and they only appear in the typical streaming services and industry directories. The group could possibly be redirected to Matt Darey as one of his many electronic projects. Also note that the article uses this AllMusic profile: [2], but that is an entirely different band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. Charted = Notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how notability works. If there are no independent reliable sources from which to write this; then this should be deleted not only because of GNG but also because of WP:V. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely wrong. WP:NMUSIC makes it clear: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" establishes notability. And a music chart is an independent reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They charted, and so they meet our standards of notability. Those standards do include the classifier of "may" rather than "must", but precedent is that the "may" is not acted upon, and so while I believe that the aren't the subject of sufficient significant, reliable, and independent coverage to have a wikipedia article about them, I have no choice but to !vote "keep". BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent elsewhere is that no SNG is absolute; and if a subject does not have enough good sources to write an article from, then it's not only an issue of notability but of verifiability. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My experience of AfD's differ, but given your greater experience, and the fact that I disagree with this supposed precedent that I have observed, changed to Delete. BilledMammal (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a thorough fail of GNG overrides the SNG mentioned above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added some references. There are references in books, but sometimes Google Books limits the amount of a book that you can see. There are unrelated bands named Lost Tribe in other countries. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Matt Darey as this was effectively a pseudonym used by him ([3]) and his most successful in terms of chart position. We don't have a binary decision between keep and delete here - merging and redirecting is obviously more appropriate than deletion, and as we already have an article on this artist (under his real name), a standalone article isn't needed. --Michig (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Matt Darey as it's not notable enough for an independent article. Suonii180 (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criteria 2 of WP:BAND. We have SNGs for a reason to guide us on subjects when a topic doesn't meet GNG. I see no valid reason to overturn community consensus of the NMUSIC policy when it comes to bands that have charted.4meter4 (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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🌀 23:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown Virginia[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG ane WP:NBUILDING. Used to be called "Thunderbird Mall". Unable to locate any sources to support notability, beyond routine coverage such as [4][5][6]. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added some sourcing and content, appears to be a notable location in this region.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while sourcing is mostly local, it is enough to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K. A. Shaji (journalist)[edit]

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

Appears to be a promotional piece about a non-notable journalist. The sources present in the article as well as before search turn up articles by him, but nothing about him, hence fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST.-- TheWikiholic (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An award winner in the journalism (by Sanskriti Foundation), keeps GNG.--Irshadpp (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sanskriti Foundation may be notable, but the Sanskriti National Journalism Award isn't notable as it's not even covered on the foundations Wikipedia page. The award or accolade must have been reported in a reliable source independent of those making the award (an obvious press release repeated in another publication is insufficient).— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
National page coverage by a staff reporter of The Hindu daily must be enough to prove the notability of mentioned award.--Irshadpp (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nomination. The Foundation is not even notable in itself. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable journalist. fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks coverage and details about his life. Fails WP:GNG.defcon5 (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Test and Mike Knox[edit]

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

No notable tag team, fails WP:GNG. Just two wrestlers who worked together for 2 months. Sources are WP:ROUTINE, with not in-deep coverage of the team. Also, the article includes a lot of Weekly events, which isn't accepted by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Achieved nothing notable during their short time as a team. JTtheOG (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Sources in article are routine and a search didn't bring up any sources which were more in-depth. Suonii180 (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pramod Premi Yadav[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Princepratap1234 (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted, the actor has worked in multiple notable films, and also has large fan base, his songs are getting 200+ millions views on YouTube, and also covered by many reliable sources. ksabhishekbhojpuri (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor, fails WP:NACTOR. Lack of significant coverage. DMySon (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NACTOR is not met, let alone GNG Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a trainwreck. No prejudice against individual renominations, as all discussion concerned the procedural issue of bundling so many articles, rather than the merits of any individual page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tilak Public School[edit]

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

Non-notable schools. Articles are either unsourced, or replete with primary or unreliable sources. Also, they fail WP:NSCHOOL. Peter Ormond 💬 22:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages per the same reason:

Peter Ormond 💬 22:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Split into individual nominations. These schools aren't related except that they happen to be in India. Each of them requires a separate WP:BEFORE. Some that are affiliated with the Catholic church are likely to be listed in various editions of The Catholic Directory of India. C.B.C.I. Centre. 2005., but when Google Books doesn't provide a preview, we are faced with the problem that many schools derive their notability from offline sources. If the nominator isn't prepared to do WP:BEFORE, they should withdraw the nominations. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the articles are tagged with maintenance tags for years. If one can find reliable sources regarding these, they may add them and improve the articles. Peter Ormond 💬 23:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the fact that a school is affiliated with the Catholic Church, doesn't guarantee its notability. See WP:NSCHOOL. Peter Ormond 💬 23:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close – nominating 40 (!) unrelated articles at once is an abuse of WP:BUNDLE. Articles about secondary schools are quite often kept, so I'm sure that at least some of these articles have "a fair or better chance of standing on [their] own merits". (The fact that "most of the articles are tagged with maintenance tags" is of course irrelevant to the question of notability, which is determined by what sources exist.) But most importantly, it's surely not appropriate to bundle together articles about topics with no commonality except the subcontinent on which they are found. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close per above. The nominated schools are unreleated to each other, spread across several states. Sources may exist in offline or non-English languages spoken in those states. Each of them should be judged based on their merit individually. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - no way can a productive discussion be had about all of these barely-related schools in one single AfD. No prejudice against renominating any of these in a separate AfD on their own. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, don't you think that combining these in a single nomination might be considered just a tiny bit racist? I very much doubt whether so many schools would be combined in a single nomination if their only commonality was that they are in Europe. The impression given by this nomination is that articles don't deserve proper scrutiny if they are about subjects in a non-Western country that has a large non-white majority. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my intention. I would nominate similar articles to deletion, once this one gets successful. Peter Ormond 💬 16:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that that was not your intention, but it still comes across in that way. I hope you have realised by now that this one will not get successful, so will be a little more careful in the future. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close: I thought we learned from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayoral elections not to do these clusterfuck batch noms. I'm not opposed to these being renominated individually, but jeez... Curbon7 (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close I can see most of the articles in the list, are not satisfying WP:NSCHOOL or WP:ORG. You may nominate those articles separately. But for this afd is not the right way. DMySon (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close per above. The nominated schools are not related to each other and they should be nominated individually and not together.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. There are too many schools here for us to give fair treatment to each article. I'm no friend of school articles, but let's look at each one separately. RomanSpa (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viviendo Con Max[edit]

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

non notable Youtuber Theroadislong (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability under any notability guideline. Ifnord (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, and repeatedly promoted by socks. aeschylus (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find reliable sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Absolutely non-notable, I wouldn't be surprised if the author is the youtuber in question. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is missing here 19:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luv Puri[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added a book review by Kenneth Christie in a scholarly journal, Politics, Religion & Ideology. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Peter Ormond 💬 00:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet GNG, WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. I couldn't locate any additional scholarly reviews of his works. TJMSmith (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. _signed,Iflaq ^(talk) 13:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Sledziejowski[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO.

The article is simply not notable to stay on Wikipedia. Only 2 primary sources are used to discuss the fraud incident, and they only mention the subject of the article. I haven’t found any good secondary sources about the businessperson and the issues of notability haven’t been solved since the 1st nomination in 2008. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roman_Sledziejowski

--Paisavassul (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nothing in the New York Times or Polish Wikipedia, but I found this in the Wall Street Journal: Stynes, Tess (2012-11-28). "Brokerage Owner Accused in Fraud Scheme Targeted at Polish Community". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2021-09-13. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This might also be helpful: "Brooklyn Broker Accused of $4 Million Fraud Targeting Polish". Bloomberg.com. 2012-11-28. Retrieved 2021-09-13. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ONEVENT at best, fails NBIO/GNG otherwise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notable for One Event. But on other part fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an article about the event itself, since the event seems to be more notable than the person. Minkai (talk to me) 13:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEVENT.4meter4 (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs aired by TV5 (Philippine TV network)#News5. ✗plicit 23:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABC News Alert[edit]

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

This page has been around for a long time but seems never to have had any references. Apparently, I'm not the only person who has failed to locate any sourcing for this. Editors have tried to turn this into a redirect but the page was repeatedly restored. Without coverage, the programme is not independently notable. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Locked redirect to List of programs aired by TV5 (Philippine TV network)#News5 It was a two-minute news bulletin, and has no N otherwise. Please stop creating these articles individually. Nate • (chatter) 20:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs aired by TV5 (Philippine TV network)#News5 and salt as per nom. A topic ban for Russel641 may be an option too. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 00:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs aired by TV5 (Philippine TV network)#News5 per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs aired by TV5 (Philippine TV network)#News5 per above, since its originally a redirected page before Russel641 made into a "mainspace" article without any providing a reliable sources. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs aired by TV5 (Philippine TV network)#News5 and add page protection to stop it being recreated. Suonii180 (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shaan_(singer)#Discography. Plausible search terms, redirecting to discography per WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alive & Kicking (Shaan album)[edit]

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

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

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

Three articles about albums by an Indian singer, none of which are reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NALBUMS. As always, every album does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- the notability test requires reliably sourced evidence of significance, such as notable music awards and/or substantial critical analysis of the album in the media. But in each of these three cases, the only notability claim being made is that the album exists, which is not enough in and of itself, and the only references are directory entries on discogs.com or online music stores like JioSaavn, iTunes or Napster, which are not notability-supporting sources. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shaan Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. Abhiraj Mohan 31 (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUM. Imfarhad7 (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harrow Road Boyz[edit]

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

Only one source used in the article mentions the subject. My before search found this and this, neither of which come close to satisfying GNG. ².O.^Boxing 19:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 19:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 19:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability here. Most of the news articles cited in this article don't even mention this gang by name. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ––FormalDude talk 05:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's done is done[edit]

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

Just a definition of an idiom documenting its use. Previous nomination from 2011 made arguments that it's a "notable phrase," but all sources talk about is the history and usage. WP:NOTDICT explicitly says a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history. This does not seem to be a corner case where the phrase itself is an encyclopedic subject, so it fails WP:NOTDICT. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand what the nom is saying, and disagree that WP:NOTDICT applies here. Appropriate sourcing already present in article, no changes needed. Jclemens (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per WP:WORDISSUBJECT (a subsection of NOTDICT), a phrase may be encyclopedic if it has been the subject of sufficient treatment to establish notability and satisfy other relevant policies. I don't think at present this article reflects sufficient sources to verify that, but given the connection to Shakespeare, I think it is entirely possible that such sources exist. Cnilep (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think just being a phrase in Shakespeare that's still used isn't enough to warrant a stand alone article. Shakespeare popularized lots of phrases and I doubt there's merit for creating articles for all of them. There's a little more detail on the origin of the phrase in the Wikipedia entry than the Wiktionary entry but not enough to meet WP:WORDISSUBJECT unless adequate sources are found (couldn't find any in my WP:BEFORE). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "What's done is done". There was a previous nomination and so we don't need this one too. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a lot has changed since this was nominated in 2011, and most people agreed that the article was sufficiently sourced back then. --Coolperson177 (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consensus at the first AFD. "What's done is done".4meter4 (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Already speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G5. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford World Van Concept[edit]

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

The article is on a fictional topic that doesn't exist; everything in the article is original research. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless lots of reliable sources are added, it should be deleted. Sahaib (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tried finding sources. However, a quick Google search yields zero results if the -wikipedia option is added to the query. A Google search with zero results cannot be treated as evidence for non-existance, but it is a good indicator. I think it is safe to assume that reliable sources that cover the topic don't exist. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G5 creator is a sock dudhhr_Contribs 16:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No reliable sources, no such vehicle ever existed, and the article creator is well-known for using Wikipedia to promote speculation and fantasies. --Sable232 (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Van Lindberg[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. References are profiles and news about other folk. scope_creep^Talk 12:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 1) No delete opinions 2) Scant deletion rationale 3) Less than a year since last debate. Geschichte (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nandita Mahtani[edit]

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

Not notable. KnightMight (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looking through the sources presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nandita Mahtani (last year) as well as searching for sources myself I disagree with the statement above. Mahtani is covered in detail by the press in India.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous sources on her page, meets WP:GNG --GRuban (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOTNOTABLE isn't a valid reason to delete. Also KnightMight please read the previous AFD where sources were provided. –Davey2010^Talk 01:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG just with the sources present in the article and provided in the previous AfD. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhaan Rajput[edit]

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

No evidence of significant and independent coverage in reliable sources. Basically all of the sources are either "partnered content" press releases or interviews. Likely case of WP:COI or WP:UPE. M4DU7 (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ircu[edit]

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish that it is notable. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in time, is *any* IRC software notable? It can be trivially merged into a more general article like IRCd. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete – Well, in terms of Wikipedia notability, there are probably many notable IRC clients as they are old enough to acquire quite a lot of reporting around them :P. But it seems to me this is not one of those. – K4rolB (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an IRC client, it's a server. (Did you even read the article?) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did find three sources that are quality RS. See: [7], [8], [9] However, this is not a subject I know anything about, so I am hesitant to offer an opinion on keeping or deleting.4meter4 (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the three source that 4meter4 found, the first is unrelated to IRC, and the other two are passing mentions. Jfire (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is still under active development. scope_creep^Talk 13:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkiya Engineering College, Banda[edit]

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

No evidence of passing WP:NORG, WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. Proposing redirect to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. A previous bold redirect was reverted. Muhandes (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There is a natural redirect there. scope_creep^Talk 08:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no support for the nominator's argument. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonesta International Hotels[edit]

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

The article appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Besides, references cited in the article seems to be sponsored ads. Fails WP:NORG. Htanaungg (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This has recently become one of the largest hotel chains in the world, with corresponding major press coverage. Its recent fast growth has been the subject of two substantial articles in Forbes, which is one of the top business periodicals in the US. (The articles in Forbes have 1,200 and 1,000 words, devoted entirely to this hotel chain.) It has also been the subject of substantial articles in Skift and Hotel Management, which are major publications in the travel and hotel industries. The nominator keeps changing their critique, first that the article lacks "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention," even though the source articles are indeed independent and give significant coverage. Then that "sources are more commercial than neutral and reliable," though Wikipedia has no policy against commercial sources; many reliable sources, like newspapers and academic publishers, are commercial businesses. Now, that it reads "like an advertisement" and references "seems to be sponsored ads." I see no indication that any of the references is sponsored. The article is entirely factual, without puffery or advertising. It describes the size of the chain, and lists its major brands, which is normal for a Wikipedia article on a company with multiple brands, so that people researching those brands can find their owner and relationships. Some of the brands and individual hotels are notable in their own right and have articles, which also indicates the notability of the large parent company. Editors who dislike the current article's wording can offer improvements, not deletion, when the subject is clearly notable. I have no relationship with the company; I sometimes edit articles about languages, ran into this chain, and sought more information on it. Kim9988 (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs to be improved, but the company meets with notability guidelines. Lagoyan (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:NCORP based on the sources in the article. The multiple independent RS with in-depth coverage on the company's expansion in 2020 are particularly convincing. The nominator hasn't provided a convincing source analysis to make a valid deletion claim.4meter4 (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

White Oak Creek Marina[edit]

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

No indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatantly self-promotional and could easily have been prodded under WP:G11. Most likely fails WP:SIGCOV as well.4meter4 (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. zero gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional and not notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dharm Jagaran Samiti[edit]

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

Just a local religious institution doesn't meet WP:NORG (or WP:NRELORG). Htanaungg (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of the Voiceless (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage, article was created by editor with a stated conflict of interest with the production company BOVINEBOY2008 00:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: music video lacking significant coverage.defcon5 (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surya Bhojpuri[edit]

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

Not enough coverage to have a wikipedia article. Fails GNG Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 01:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 01:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 01:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 01:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Licensed broadcasters are generally kept, even if they have ceased broadcasting. I added some references about some satellite companies dropping this channel, but I cannot tell whether the channel still operates. Nonetheless, once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - treat this as basically a stub article. The channel was carried by several broadcasters. The sources aren't the best - one meh (Lyngsat), one semi-decent (TheFreeToAir) and the rest passing mentions. There isn't a good merge target. I would chop out the current/former show list and stub the article. Ravensfire (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the article was moved to draft space after the AFD has started. No comments from that editor here though. Ravensfire (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have reverted the out-of-process move to draftspace.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BCAST and Ravensfire. There are two other sister channels, Surya Samachar and Surya Cinema which are in a similar state. I'd prefer to keep this as the main article and merge/redirect those articles to this one. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per all above.4meter4 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikborg Rein[edit]

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

Failure to meet WP:NORG. There are quite a few passing mentions in online English news related to the Fishrot Files (summarized: an Icelandic fishing company bribed ~~Nigerian~~ Namibian officials to obtain fishing quotas, Wikborg Rein was hired to investigate afterwards) but notability is not inherited.

Brought to my attention on the Help Desk (suspected paid editing). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was Namibia, not Nigeria. I don't see how the context is relevant, especially since you found no substantive coverage. I also don't understand what the editor has to do with it. Are you saying that you brought this article to AfD because you suspected an editor had a conflict of interest? Please explain. Yappy2bhere (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
COI editing is not in itself a reason for deletion, but I just wanted to mention how I got my eyes on the article (through the help desk); that is indeed irrelevant to the nomination. The Fishrot mention (thanks for the correction btw) was to ward off people from bringing in sources based on that (or at least, have them explain why those sources are not passing mentions/inherited notability). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it was meant to be helpful, not prejudicial. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find a unique "biography" for each of the firm's five offices at The Legal 500 (except Bergen's which is essentially Oslo's with different lead partners) [10] ff. I find WR used as an authority on offshore acquisitions [11] [12]. I find WR interviewed for its perspective on merger regulation [13] and for its role in a funds merger [14]. I find a "spectrum" of WR employees (well, a new associate and a departmental lead) interviewed about the peculiar challenges presented by WR's practice area [15]. That's sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG and WP:NORG, and the likelihood that enough such references are available to write a reliably sourced article. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not independent sources, unless there is a significant top blurb or comments etc. that go beyond printing what the firm said. In your links [16] has a blurb but it is pure routine. The Legal 500 page is a "firm profile", which means from their "how it works" page (section "the profile package") that it is a bought ad space. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, the interviews are primary-sourced statements published in a secondary source. Primary-sourced statements can't support the notability of the subject ("we are a notable firm"), but independent publication of them does ("we think they're worth listening to"). WP:GNG requires that the publication be independent of its subject: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. It doesn't require that the content be independent of the subject. So yes, interviews in independent publications support notability.

Second, the profiles in The Legal 500 clearly demarcate the company's prose with, yes, quotation marks. It's disingenuous therefore to represent them as full-page ads (it is a bought ad space). You're right that they don't support notability, since they wouldn't have been published without payment, so I'll offer the rankings [17], which are independent of the firm per your source [18], in place of the profiles.

Do you have issues with the other sources I provided, or those in the article itself? Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a company/organization, WP:NCORP applies. WP:ORGIND actually explicitly says "Independent Content" is required. So .. if all the in-depth information about the company comes from an interview/quotes/announcements/PR and the journalist/publication does not introduce their own, then the reference in question fails the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SECONDARY: A secondary source (...) contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources (...) making analytic or evaluative claims about them. Interviews do not contain "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" (unless they contain a starting or finishing blurb, or particularly detailed questions, which none of those do). "Journalist/newspaper X decided to interview Y" (i.e. "we think they are worth listening to") does not meet WP:GNG’s criteria of "in-depth coverage"; this has been the practice for a long time at AfD.

For the Legal 500, if I understand correctly, you are arguing that the paragraph Praised for its 'commercial and efficient approach'... on casualty matters. is written by the Legal 500 and not the firm itself. Well, I do not know about that, and even assuming so, it would be difficult to know if this paragraph would have been written if the firm did not pay for the other paragraph (Shanghai is an international business and trading hub... in English or Norwegian law.), so at best it is a shaky source. The rankings are most likely independent, but that fails the in-depth coverage test (unless you want to argue that a listing in Legal 500 is a highly significant or selective award, and make an analogy with NMUSIC or similar WP:SNGs). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, do you have issues with the other sources I provided, or those in the article itself? Did you read them?

The GNG doesn't mention "in-depth coverage". It requires more than trivial mention in sources with editorial integrity that are independent of the subject. It recommends secondary sources as the most objective evidence. The rankings, which are not "awards" and are entirely independent of WR, qualify on all counts. It's disingenuous to suggest that the rankings aren't significant coverage. The Legal 500's 8,000-word article lists the practice areas in which they excel and their particular strengths in each area; their top advocates in each area, their particular strengths, and which are top-tier in their own right; and important clients and representative client opinions of the firm. Chambers and Partners' global rankings [19] are similarly detailed but distributed over several pages.

I've already stipulated that the firm profiles would not have been published without payment and chastised you for misrepresenting them as unedited advertisements [20] (profiles [are] based on information provided by the participating firms ... profiles [are] approved by the firms prior to publication--your citation, my emphasis). Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did misquote WP:GNG - it does not say "in-depth coverage", it says "significant coverage". Same thing, if you ask me. It also says addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.

Let us assume for the sake of the argument that the Legal 500 blurb constitutes significant coverage. (I do not think it does for the reasons outlined above but I have nothing to add to my previous posts.) That is one source. WP:GNG says that multiple sources are generally expected, so we need at least another one.

The rest of the sources you have provided either here on your September 7 post or in the article in the current version (if there are others, please point them out) fall under two categories:

Rankings, such as the Legal 500 ranking and Chambers (once you exclude the "about paragraph" which starts by a disclaimer This content is provided by Wikborg Rein Advokatfirma AS.). You also provided Universum global but (1) I do not Wikborg Rein on the list and (2) even if they had been #1 for five years straight the following argument would still apply.
Interviews; or articles about a related topic, where someone who works at Wikborg Rein is quoted (with more or less length) as an expert of the topic.

For rankings, the only content you can extract is "X was ranked in position N by Y", so this is not going to help meet GNG by itself. Now, I do think they could count under some circumstances. Some SNGs list rankings (or award, which is similar since "number 1 in some ranking" is functionnally equivalent to an award by the ranking-maker) as a presumption of notability - for instance WP:NACADEMIC #2/3, WP:MMABIO #3, etc. WP:NORG does not; yet, if the ranking/award was highly selective and significant within the field, it would certainly be a decent argument for keep. However, I suspect that Legal500/Chambers rankings are not highly selective or significant within the legal profession, but could be convinced otherwise.

For the interview-like sources, if I understand correctly, your position is that giving speaking time to a person/firm does constitute significant coverage in the form of "this person/firm is worth listening to", even if the quoted text itself is not independent and hence not usable. I do not believe this argument is correct with respect to policy. Please point to one example at AfD where that argument has been made and accepted within the last five years. On the contrary, I looked through Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Business/archive_3, the most recent discussion that contains "interview" in the text was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Panorama9, with the comment The article contains an interview with the company's CEO but has enough independent coverage to contribute to notability (which implicitly acknowledges that "regular" interviews do not constitute independent coverage). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since this is a company/organization, the relevant guideline is WP:NCORP. The references all repeat information provided by the company and/or executives and there is nothing to meet WP:CORPDEPTH remaining. Happy to look at any new references but as it is and based on what I can find, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A misstatement of fact. Only [1] simply repeats information provided by the company, and even that source writes company-provided information into its own narrative, quoting company-provided information to demarcate it. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends on how much weight you put on the Legal500 organization especially seeing as how they require "submissions" from legal firms to apply to be included and then have a sales team to help those firms "market themselves and to drive business development" with a variety of marketing solutions such as "face-to-face sponsorship, research and thought leadership" through to "online and print profiles". If there were other references outside of Legal500 I'd be more inclined to take this seriously but there isn't. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are six other references [2]-[5],[8] besides the one you've fixated on [1], and four more in the article itself. You either misconstrue or misstate The Legal 500's editorial policy [9]: firms pay a fee for inclusion in the directory and the directory is produced from descriptions provided by firms, but rankings and editorial content are independent. That could be a lie, but I don't think they're less independent than, say, AllHipHop.com. Yappy2bhere (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And a couple of Tigraan's "passing mentions" of the Samherji investigation [21] [22] [23].

Delete- promotional article, does not meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Traction: Get A Grip On Your Business[edit]

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

There is some coverage, but minor mentions. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 1 September 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 11:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. scope_creep^Talk 13:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. This is the sort of deeply divided discussion that admins are reticent to touch, knowing that any outcome will be challenged and likely dragged through a labyrinthine review process. Nevertheless, here we are. The disagreement here is not as to whether the subject has received coverage in sources, but of what that coverage amounts to. Notably (and distinct from the previous two discussions), the article has more than tripled in size over the course of the current discussion, with additions to the article substantially painting the picture of the subject's life and historically significant assignments and activities. The dispute about whether military publications reporting on members of the military is not going to be settled within the confines of this discussion, but there is certainly no consensus here for the proposition that they are impermissible for the purpose for which they are used.

Given the extensive participation in the discussion and its extended stay in the backlog, I see no reason to believe that relisting would yield any different of an outcome. BD2412 T 06:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy J. Edens[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BASIC. This page has been nominated twice before and kept on the misconception that his rank satisfied notability under the now deprecated WP:SOLDIER. 7 of the 10 sources provided are Army/Government and so as PRIMARY are disregarded for notability purposes. 1 newspaper story is behind a paywall, while the other simply contains minimal detail about a change of command ceremony. The final source is the Troy University blog, arguably also PRIMARY, but containing minimal detail about the subject. While some other local newspapers have passing mentions of his Army service or change of commands, there is no significant coverage establishing notability. Even basic biographical detail such as date and place of birth and education are lacking. Mztourist (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG, as do most general officers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Both Necrothesp and I were notified of the discussion by a third party (not sure why we were chosen. I close AFD1. My question is if this easily passes GNG what specific sources are you relying on for that opinion? Bare assertions carry little weight and the source analysis is detailed enough that you really should explain why you disagree if you want your opinion to count. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was also notified by a third party. I had made one edit to the article back in 2019, but otherwise don't have any connection to it. --Kbabej (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Third party here. I meant to notify people who made non-trivial edits to the article or who participated in the two previous AfDs and who hadn't already been notified. I missed some people, but I think everyone who ought to receive these messages has now been notified. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Eastmain why did you feel such notifications are necessary? You notably missed User:Nick-D. Mztourist (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Necrothesp as you know, one of the requirements of GNG is ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". How is that satisfied here? We lack the most basic biographical detail of him. Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this just going to be a bare assertion of limited value as per ata or will you describe what sources are meeting the gng and how? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if there is significant coverage in the sources, we seem to be lacking content. The article text tells us four things about him - one of which apparently needs 8 citations to support it. (this is not an invitation to dredge google and fill in dates of every command he held) GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So just ftr, you believe the article has too many sources...? - wolf 20:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Citation overkill is just an essay but "Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word, as an editor desperately tries to shore up one's point or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that their opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for their edit. " (my emphasis) GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did not add those citations. Every citation I added corresponds directly to the text it follows. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - User:Thewolfchild Graeme added the citation overkill tag when the page looked like this: [24]. Jamesallain85 you did add all those overkill citations: [25]. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on current sourcing - none of the sources independent of the Army or BG Edens provide significant coverage of him. As a result, WP:BIO is not met. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO as noted by Nick-D. Intothat darkness 22:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically speaking, all newspapers are considered primary sources, but I have added some non government newspaper articles. Other sources I have added have been criticised as they are behind a paywall. However, I would like to point out WP:Paywall states these sources should not be excluded, it is no different than a book citation and WP:Offline where a book would need to be purchased. Jamesallain85 (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get "all newspapers are considered primary sources" from? Mztourist (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase, all newspaper sources created contemporary to the event covered are primary sources. It is the definition of a primary source. So unless a newspaper article is covering something in a historical context it is a primary source.Jamesallain85 (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Provide the WP policy that says that. Mztourist (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken, Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources (How to classify a source) / Primary source. Any article written at the time the event occurred is a primary source. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read down far enough, you need to look at Are news-reporting media secondary or primary sources? But as the newspapers that you provided are mere contemporary reports and contain no analysis and so can be considered PRIMARY and of no value for Notability. Mztourist (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read over that again. "Many editors—especially those with no training in historiography—call these newspaper articles "secondary sources". Most reliable sources in academia, however, name typical contemporary newspaper stories as primary sources." Unless the newspaper article is analysing a past event, it is primary. Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as primary sources being excluded as consideration for notability, if we decide that should be the case, we could probably delete about 50% of biographies on Wikipedia. The issue with living person biographies is that in many cases, secondary sources do not yet exist. I was under the impression that multiple primary sources could also substantiate notability. Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be wrong. GNG and N make clear that notability is measured by secondary sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes a secondary source in your opinion? Because there seems to be some confusion on what people consider a secondary source vs an independent source. I know what secondary source is academically and what Wikipedia states, but I also have seen how the label secondary source seems to be applied liberally to primary sources. I recently had another article deleted despite having notability from multiple strong secondary sources, while I see AfDs constantly arguing and winning that newspaper articles are secondary sources, despite the fact they are primary sources, but still demonstrate notability while Wikipedia states they should be secondary sources. Issues with biographical articles on the living is that they are not old enough to be in books talking about history. Just a random example, Carter Ham. His is in my opinion notable, but I would argue every source in his article is a primary source. I can guarantee he isn't the only one, that was one strong reason I felt WP:Soldier was good as it set a guideline of the type of military members that would most likely be written about in the future. Jamesallain85 (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out that from an academic perspective, newspapers can be primary, secondary or tertiary, depending on the perspective of the article. Where the article talks about a current event, it is primary, as it lacks the perspective of time to weigh other relevant factors that may become public later. Where an article looks at a situation retrospectively, such as in an obituary, it is mainly a secondary source, as it can consider all matters that arose previously. Where an article reviews the material provided in other publications (such as in a review of non-fiction works) it can act as a tertiary source by summarising points raised by the secondary sources. Just as you believe other editors are too free with classifying primary newspaper articles as secondary, you shouldn't swing the other way and paint all newspaper material as primary. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

significant? No that’s just an argument. How many lines of text is actually in those sources?. Gng requires secondary = not first hand, independent = equals written by someone else and in depth = substantial coverage. Your sources need to be all 3. Can you cite the sources you think meet this criteria and actually list them to be discussed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article meets the same standard as other contemporary generals with wikipedia articles. This article is well sourced, better sourced than many others. Before considering this article for deletion I would urge others to look at similar articles: Carter Ham, Joseph Anderson (U.S. Army general), George Appenzeller, Robert P. Ashley Jr., Francis M. Beaudette, Scott D. Berrier, Michael A. Bills, William H. Brandenburg and many many more. These articles are almost entirely, if not entirely, primary sources. I do not believe that these articles should be deleted nor this one. I think there should be a discussion looking at notability for soldiers, especially for contemporary soldiers because of the practically nonexistent secondary sources. Many have argued that a General grade officer should meet notability guidelines, and I would have to agree. When WP:Solder was in effect it wasn't an issue. I think it would be a shame AfD so many articles do to a bad policy change. Jamesallain85 (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesallain85: I wouldn't be surprised if you just Streisand effected all those bio's you mentioned into a mass-deletion. - wolf 19:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Policy didn't change - WP:Soldier was always over-ruled by the GNG policy and the project acknowledged that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear case of WP:AQU in the first place. This article is well sourced and and meets WP:GNG. There are numerous independent sources from the Baltimore Sun, the Dothan Eagle, and the Southeast Sun that either outline significant events in Eden's career or have direct input and quotes from Edens on the subject matter. These articles are reliable and demonstrate significant coverage. Jamesallain85 (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesallain85 sure all those pages can be looked at, however almost all of them are more substantial than the Edens page was when nominated and they are all higher ranks than Brigadier General which means its more likely, but by no means certain, that there's more written about them. Mztourist (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp and Jamesallain85. That, and I was under the impression we were building an encyclopaedia here. Besides the fact that no policy is irreversibly cast in stone, the constant "does not meet SIGCOV for GNG" arguments are often just opinions that can go either way, often falling to just a couple of guys !voting "keep" or "delete" at any given time. That does not seem like sound a sound policy or a reason to delete useful, encyclopaedic information. (IMHO) - wolf 19:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So what is the policy basis for keeping this article. The only source analysis is against the sources in the article and I have asked several times about what sources pass gng and just get met by rhetoric and deflection. Its almost as if the arguments don’t pass muster and you keep votors are just trying to move the goalposts away from policy based discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe the policy needs to be discussed if so many editors obviously disagree with it. I am starting to get the impression there is a "Good Ol' Boys Club" when it comes to AfDs. Standards are not upheld equally, some editors show obvious bias and throw around accusations, and it is just ignored. Anytime I point out there is a precedent, I am accused of WP:Otherstuff. Other articles are relevant if it shows an established precedent of notability, such as rank for instance, or if a double Navy Cross winner is notable. How did we come to the consensus that Aces were automatically notable? Jamesallain85 (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We didn't establish a consensus that aces were automatically notable; we established a consensus that this constitutes what we call a credible claim of notability, which is the lowest hurdle that an article needs to clear in order to avoid a speedy deletion at the hands of the new page patrol. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete. Blowing away the smoke from the above, it seems there is remarkably little substance in the notability argument once the fallacy that all 1,000-odd of the general officers in the US must be notable by default. Two independent newspaper articles is always going to struggle to constitute notability, especially in a country like the US where it is very hard to argue that genuinely notable people slip through the net. Internal army pages are no more relevant to establishing notability than a company newsletter would be. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I count eight independent sources. Ref No. 2, 7, 11, 12, 15, 21, 22, and 23. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edens was not a paper pushing general, he was an Master Army Pilot with combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan and also commanded a two separate brigades in combat. I agree not every Joe with a star should be notable, but he is not just a regular Joe. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But do these eight independent source give significant coverage? So far as I can tell: 2 (Edens as spokesperson - article is not about him?) , 7 (University reporting gist of speech that a guest gave at the university - but only tells us his name, rank and ~~number~~ position), 11 & 12 & 15 & 21 (can't tell because US papers have trouble with GDPR), 22 and 23 (need to sign up to read). GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Newspapers can be a primary source when a reporter discovers news. But they are a secondary source when they report that a particular university has recognized the notability of a person, as is the case here. The university (Troy) trustees made the evaluation of the credentiuals and decided they were notable. Rjensen (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the start of that quote statement "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:GNG per mentions in newspapers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Increasingly information about living people such as date of birth are not only unavailable, but inadvisable to post on Wikipedia even if known. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was kept at 8 September 2020. The same person nominated it for deletion then and now. If you don't get your way, you shouldn't just keep sending the same article to AFD hoping to get a different outcome. The coverage of him I've read through seems to just be quoting him because of his job position, or the military publication announcing him being put in charge of something mentioning his career information. Is there anything not routine coverage of him? Dream Focus 02:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in my nom, the previous AFDs were decided on a misconception of the now deprecated SOLDIER, it is perfectly reasonable for me to AFD it again now over a year later. Mztourist (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I actually think this nomination contains a misstatement of GNG and the definition of sources that are not independent of the subject. US Army sources are not from Edens himself or his family or close friends (which would not be independent of him, of course), they are from the organisation that employs him. The idea of using independent sources is to stop self-published and self-serving material being used as a secondary source. That is not the case with US Army sources on Edens, as the US Army is independent from Edens. The newspaper articles are secondary sources from WP perspective, not primary ones that they would usually be for an academic. There are also assumptions being made about the content of sources editors haven't even seen. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That logic flies in the face of everything I have understood about sourcing. He was an Army officer, so part of the organization that published the information about him, how is that not PRIMARY? Mztourist (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mztourist, now you're confusing primary with independent of the subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources." An Army source about an Army officer is Primary and not independent. Mztourist (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or an American source about an American! Where's that guy who said we should source articles about basketball from books on cricket? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that analogy is disingenuous; this guy works for the institution that is the US Army. Naturally the US Army official media will cover him. Coca-Cola press releases do not contribute to the notability of Coca-Cola executives for the same reason. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The article has expanded significantly in the course of this discussion so that it now looks quite respectable rather than being a stub. Policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute your HEY assertion, sources have been added but they do not amount to "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Mztourist (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. In the state the article was in when first nominated I'd have been inclined to vote delete but given the significant expansion it now looks much improved. W C M_email 16:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Are there no book histories of the Iraq War that cover him in any significant way? Without something like that I'd lean delete; this article is mostly official army sources and alumni publications listing WP:ROUTINE coverage of career moves. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable because of the awards he won. Just as winning an award for a singer who danced around in their underwear singing in a music video makes them notable, or winning the academy award for being in a war movie adds to actor's claim to notability by Wikipedia standards, so does winning awards/medals for fighting in actual wars. Dream Focus 18:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's no evidence here that those awards make him notable – anyone can copy-paste some emblems and create a pretty list with them –, the sources for those are almost exclusively the army itself. I'm inclined to agree with Indy beetle and GraemeLeggett, there's no source that obviously meets GNG and most of the content simply covers routine career advancements. Avilich (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Re the awards, I'm inclined to agree that there is no evidence that those make him notable. These are not MoHs... @Dream Focus: Which awards are you talking about? or winning the academy award for being in a war movie adds to actor's claim to notability is distinctive because it is an academy award, not any award. The Iraq Campaign Medal is given to any US military member who served for 30+ days in Iraq. I don't think any consensus exists that even recipients of the Legion of Merit are presumed notable. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Combat Action Badge meant they were in active combat. Bronze Star Medal "awarded for either heroic achievement, heroic service, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service in a combat zone." Air Medal "awarded for single acts of heroism or meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight." So yes, notable. The fact that the mainstream media likes to cover attractive famous people do anything at all, instead of actual notable people doing notable things, is irrelevant. More than one way to prove notability. Dream Focus 03:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Avilich and Indy beetle, those awards don't satisfy #1 of WP:ANYBIO, generally they are "job well done" and 'You were there" medals, not medals for incredible bravery or achievement. The Army hands out the Bronze Star and Air Medal readily, we have hundreds if not thousands of military bios of people with many more Bronze Stars and Air Medals than Edens and that isn't the basis for their notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Air Medal is actually awarded by the Army based on time spent flying in a combat zone (one for every six months is the current standard...prior to 2006 or so it was based on flight hours). So it's a blanket award for showing up. It could involve some sort of heroic action...or it might not. The standard Bronze Star is handed out like crazy (there was a general tightening up of policy after the Air Force awarded Bronze Stars to officers in Missouri who were supporting B-2 operations over Kosovo). It's the BS(V) that has some weight. Intothat darkness 22:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Much as I share the distaste for the media's obsession for rich nitwits who do nothing but take their parents money and launch a shoe line, we aren't in the position of deciding who is "worthy" of the media's attention and who is not. We have to follow the sources. There are hundreds of thousands of recipients of bronze stars [26], it is a terrible predictor for who has sigcov in reliable sources and who does not. Without his political career, WWII paratrooper Terry Sanford, a bronze start and purple heart recipient, is a man none of us have ever heard of. Not to be mean, but when you speak of actual notable people doing notable things it sounds more like your criteria is WP:ILIKEIT vs WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: while there have been a number of gross misinterpretations of policy, I've looked at the sourcing (and yes, a US Army article by a public affairs specialist is essentially a press release and not independent), and only seen this publication's independent, barely in-depth source (though even it is somewhat lacking). Articles that quote him aren't really indicative of notability, non independent sourcing isn't indicative of notability, nor are press releases, and I'm even less convinced local(ish) publications reporting what he said when he spoke somewhere are the kind of coverage that's indicative of notability. News articles repeating word for word what someone did are where they veer into being primary sources, while profiles are more indicative of notability. If policy needs to be changed (as many of the keep votes are arguing, that's not a discussion for AFD. Given that there's sources from an extensive range of places in the article-- and that's the best we can find, I really don't see WP:GNG as being met. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did find mention of him in books on the war in Iraq [27][28][29] (also in the Washington Post [30]) and aviation safety [31]. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second book is about another Edens, and I couldn't find any mention of the subject on the aviation handbook either. The WaPo article only quotes him for a brief report, he is obviously not the subject of the discussion. The relevant section of that article is copied verbatim by book one, which has nothing else to offer. The third book is unavailable for preview. Avilich (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4 and 7 are basically the same WaPo quote. As Avilich pointed out 5 is by a different Edens as is 8 Handbook of Aviation Human Factors. Mztourist (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reasons offered for keeping are a mixture of misstatements or misinterpretations of policy, citing deprecated essay criteria, or misinterpretation of sources. There is a fundamental lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The coverage in reliable sources is either not independent or not significant and the converge that is significant is not independent. "Significant" in this context means that a source needs to be significantly about the article subject, which the offered independent RS coverage is not. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Jamesallain85 (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. So no, there is no misstating or misinterpreting of policy here except by those who, for some bizarre reason, think that an encyclopaedia is best served by deleting as much information as possible. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That "bizarre reason" would be the WP:NOTDIRECTORY policy, which supersedes the continued attempts to resurrect NSOLDIER criteria. The !vote should make it clear that the independent coverage is trivial mentions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing the !vote shows is that there is no clear consensus. Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (my previous comments were comments). I am not convinced that the coverage in the sources given at this point in time (and that I can access) of the article meet GNG requirements. The coverage in newspapers is routine or scant (doesn't meet the "more than a trivial mention" hurdle) or where there is detail it is from non-independent sources (as said above much is the equivalent of company internal newsletters, or is only available because of the Army's requirement to open access, or is press releases and stories given to local media ).

One might err on the cautionary side, give the sources the benefit of the doubt, and retain because of the article content itself - but the article content is thin. We could discount much of the early life which is essentially sourced to school yearbooks (again not independent). The career is a list of "he was given this appointment", "he was given that appointment" "he was promoted" for the most part never saying what he did in these posts, or why he was promoted. "safety iniatives" - that was his job, "Critical of budget cuts" unsurprising. The biggest section of the article is the display of the various career awards with (to my taste oversize) pictorial representations of those. It is, to my mind an example of what can happen when one tries to improve an article as alternative to deletion - you hit a wall because there is no content out there and there is no content because the subject is just not that notable to be recorded. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that what makes him most notable is the coverage he had as commander of 12th CAB. Apache helicopters under his command killed Iraqi civilians and he responded. It was documented in The Washington Post, which only aids in arguing for notability. Jamesallain85 (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yet that has never featured on the page (and still doesn't) and you've not raised it before. Mztourist (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think no. 4 The Wilmington Post (via subscription access archive) is the reference in question. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did rummage around and I found this on the Washington Post website which includes these 2 quotes:

"It's not Hollywood and it's not 110 percent perfect," said Col. Timothy J. Edens, the commander of the 12th Combat Aviation Brigade, of the accuracy of his unit's strikes. "It is as precise as very hardworking soldiers and commanders can make it. These criminals do not operate in a clean battle space. It is occupied by civilians, law-abiding Iraqis."
"As in all wars, when things go wrong, bad things happen," said Edens, the colonel. "There's no doubt that there have been innocent civilians killed in this ugly war."

That's the sum total of the mention of Edens across four pages.( An injured civilian gets about the same column inches. And an Apache pilot more than 25% of the text). GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then should I write an article about the Apache pilot? I guess it would pass WP:GNG. Jamesallain85 (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seriously, the sources are inadequate and so many of the keep votes are ignoring actual policy and consensus they should be deleted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Article has been improved significantly since nomination. The "no consensus" close felt appropriate. NemesisAT (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental issue here is that, in my view, sources establishing a pass of GNG have still not been presented and no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lack of independent sourcing, admittedly. However, I'm happy with stories like this one and thisn one and there is evidently enough sourcing available to write a verifiable article. I disagree with the notion that an article isn't independent because it contains quotes - as long as there is commentary alongside the quotes, I feel we can consider that commentary as independent. NemesisAT (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? The first story is an opinion piece with a quote from him about motorbike safety while the second is him saying that budget cuts will affect safety, hardly specific detail about him. Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC. In one example, I looked at the WaPo source; it contains two quotes from the Edens, and one sentence of how he and fellow officers live behind blast walls. The subject's rank would not have qualified under the criteria of WP:SOLDIER, before it was retired, and there's nothing better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a whole, the sourcing is sufficient, especially the newspaper coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY is all well and good, but that's saying that the article now meets GNG. Given that it seems to be contested whether that is really the case, maybe it's a good idea to talk about why it now meets GNG, rather than just repeating wikilinks to WP:HEY? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ANYBIO significant awards. Good job editors. Then and now. WP:HEY Lightburst (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the evidence that the awards are significant, and what is your reply to the comment immediately above yours? Avilich (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst his awards have been discussed above already, none are significant. Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BOB 03 2021[edit]

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

This articles isn't needed. Most of the content is copied from 2021 North Indian Ocean cyclone season with no proper artibutions, plus it fails to meet WP:NN which is vital for an article. This article also have huge WP:MoS issues.Bera niladri19 🌀🌀 07:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Beraniladri19 said this article should delete, the storm is unknown impact, every storm like this dont deserve to be article. HurricaneEdgar 09:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Dam222 🌋 (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant copy of the main article. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copied from the main article, isn't notable enough for its own article and is now out of date because the main article has been updated. Neiltonks (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAs per all of the above. Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald V. Smith[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Another non-notable Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User (indeffed for copyvio). Sources are generally non reliable, passing mentions or generic Tuskegee Airmen filler. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here, just belonging to a notable unit/organisation does not confer notability on all its members, this is Easy Company all over again. Mztourist (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have had no difficulty improving this and other related articles. For example, the prominent physician Yvonnecris Veal was marked as an orphan but I have reunited her with her brothers. Our policy WP:ATD therefore applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 14:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- All about his more notable brother and sister than about him. WP:NOTINHERITED Mztourist (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. And part of a batch of copyvio stuff created by a now-blocked editor. I hope those doing improvements are checked every source provided in the original article. Intothat darkness 18:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, the sources do not give significant coverage to him, only his siblings. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew, he basically covers it. (But as an aside; "generic Tuskegee Airmen filler"...? wt.?) - wolf 20:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"t." "generic Tuskegee Airmen filler" is the same stuff the page creator put in every Tuskegee Airman page e.g. "best known as the Tuskegee Airmen, "Red Tails," or “Schwartze Vogelmenschen” ("Black Birdmen") among enemy German pilots." and the use of CAF Rise above. Mztourist (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so he put information about t. Tuskegee Airmen into an article about a Tuskegee Airman, and that's bad thing? - wolf 16:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thewolfchild I'm sure you're familiar with production-line Users who want to create as many pages as possible, as was the case here. You need to look at how quickly he was producing pages before he was indeffed. Filler is a perfectly accurate description. Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I just look at the page and if I think it should stay, that's how I vote. I don't think I even look at the creator, certainly not their history. I'm not even sure this whole angle is even appropriate tbh. - wolf 04:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew, he basically covers it. Article is substantial and improved from the time when it was nominated for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have consolidated the sources so that they can be more easily seen. The major source is CAF which is of dubious reliability apparently based on user submissions. Then there's Black Professional that Andrew added which is about his sister with two sentences "Two brothers were Tuskegee Airmen. Reginald V. Smith died in 1946 in a plane crash and brother Graham was listed as missing in action after he failed to return from his 98th mission in Korea." The Roanoke paper contains one sentence about him and his brother. Then we have Geni, a genealogy website which I assume is based on user submissions. Then the digital gems picture of his brother. Then another Geni ref about his daughter. Then there's the book that User:7&6=thirteen added, the pages cited can't be accessed online, so please tell us what it says, though I note that the book has only 223 pages, so I'm not sure what is on the non-existent pages 386, 512 and 514 that 7&6=thirteen cited. Then finally there's the North Carolina bill that just lists his and his brothers' names. Mztourist (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are there independent of siblings, the article could however use improvement, WP:AQU. It is irrelevant that the author is banned, the article needs to stand on its own merit, which it does. Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article asserts the subject's non-notability: he died immediately after graduating. Most of the sources are unreliable (CAF), self-published (geni), or don't deal with the man himself in any meaningful way. The book that 7&6=thirteen added apparently mentions the subject not a single time, and 7&6=thirteen also seems to have made up a bunch of page numbers to make his claim seem authentic (he here claims the article has been substantially improved since the nom, which is false). There's that North Carolina decree, but the subject is simply one of many named in it, and the reference is to a non-independent primary source. On the so-called "further reading" section, there's nothing to be further read: the subject gets no more than passing mentions, and in listings mostly. In short, there are no adequate sources, there's nothing encyclopedic here, and this article should've been speedily deleted immediately after its creator was banned. Avilich (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Avilich. There's not much in terms of actual reliable sourcing that aren't brief mentions or a local writeup of the subject's funeral. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources provided don't go into enough detail to provide notability and several are unreliable. Suonii180 (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Mztourist's analysis of the source has convinced me that there isn't sufficient coverage to meet GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I discounted the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eid-e-Shuja'[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Eid-e-Shuja'

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

Article only contains six sources, half of which are unreliable. For example, Ask the Sheik, IslamicOccassions.com, IslamicQuest.net. The source no.1 and source no.4 does not even TALK about the festival. This is so non-notable. Also half of the passage contains other events on the day? For example, Ascension of the Mahdi, Beheading of Umar ibn Sa'ad which have nothing to do with Omar Koshan/Eid-e-Shuja'. And last but not least, the fun fact is that Omar was not even assassinated on the ninth day of the month of Rabi Al-Awwal? He was assassinated on 1st Muharram or the end of Dhul-Hijjah month. Biskut Merry (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a Twelver Shia Holiday that is held on the ninth day of the month of Rabi Al-Awwal (regardless of the nominator's opinion of the veracity of this date in regards to Omar), and there are sufficient sources in English and probably many more in Persian and Arabic. "Omar Koshan" may be the more popular name, but that's a move issue.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. per nom. This is simply non-notable at all. There's no citation on the entire article, even claiming that this is a Twelver Shia Holiday. Mullah Balawar 22:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Block-evading sock, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's demonstrably false, as there are citations in the article including Culture and customs of Iran published by Greenwood Press with this information. A search in google books for "Omar Koshan" shows many more.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with your points. I recently looked at the history view and noted that the user Quuxplusone changed the entire subject of the article. The article is about the death of Omar ibn Sa'ad, who died on the ninth day of the month of Rabi Al-Awwal, not Omar ibn al-Khattab whom Shias believe died in Dhul-Hijjah while Sunnis believe died on 1st Muharram. The version before Quuxplusone's disruptive edits can be seen here. I have reverted his edits. So this article is about the death of Omar ibn Sa'ad not Omar ibn al-Khattab. I can't find any reliable info regarding Omar ibn Sa'd's death being celebrated by Twelver Shi'as. Mullah Balawar 22:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Block-evading sock, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pinging Quuxplusone ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitely notable. Just look at some of the results when searching Google Scholar for "Omar Koshan": we've got not insignificant coverage in multiple reliable, independent (= scholarly) sources. We just still need to use them in the article, that's all. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The above applies to this revision or perhaps to this revision preferred by another editor. However, I have just completely rewritten the article on the basis of two very reliable sources (Encyclopaedia Iranica and a Brill publication), which in turn cite quite a few more sources which could be used to expand the article. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears notable from google search, albeit under Omar Koshan name. Also the fact that Omar Koshan was not actually assassinated on whatever date is irrelevant: we know jesus was almost certainly not born on December 25th, that doesn't mean we should be removing christmas from wiki! That said it would be an interesting addition if it can be sourced. John wiki: If you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 14:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that the sources added to the article are enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University of Pennsylvania Glee Club[edit]

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

It does not appear to be the case that reliable sources on this page (or ones I could find) cover the club in-depth enough in a manner that is separate from the University of Pennsylvania for the club to be independently notable, especially in light of WP:RSSM. In the absence of reliable sources independent of both Penn and the club, the club's page should be deleted. While a user commented on the talk page about the supposed "a lot more here than WP:RSSM", a cursory view of the google news results provided did not show substantial coverage by newspapers that were both independent of the University and not student media. Searches of other areas show many works written by people who were in the club that reference their time there, but the works that cover the Penn Glee Club in a substantial manner are plainly not independent of the club itself. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the references are not independent of the University - needs independent RS Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references from Arizona Republic and WHYY-FM. A note on independence: A university's book publishing press makes its publishing decisions independently of the university, and any good student newspaper is barely on speaking terms with the university administration. There are also some relevant comments under the heading "Proposed deletion" on the article's talk page. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If university's book publishing press makes its publishing decisions independently of the university is with reference to the memoir that is currently cited multiple times throughout the book, the main independence problem is that the guy was employed by the club for about fifty years and is telling his own life story; he may have editors, but we generally don't count autobiographies towards notability.

Regarding any good student newspaper is barely on speaking terms with the university administration: sure? To the best of my knowledge WP:RSSM is justified more in that student media tends to be hyperlocal to a University, and thus extremely mundane things that occur at the university will get picked up by student media; student media's coverage also generally does not itself provide evidence that the subject is independently notable from the University, owing to that same hyperlocal scope. This is on top of reliability and independence issues that student media generally face. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rather a lot of independent reliable substantial sources really. First three I found: [32][33][34] Thincat (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of those articles go really any more in-depth into the club than something along the lines of "this glee club will be playing at a local venue," even mentioning how to purchase tickets. In many ways, those articles feel like an old version of churnalism that doesn't provide more coverage of the club than a simple press release would. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am reading "Now in its second century, the University of Pennsylvania Glee Club is recognized internationally as one of the outstanding groups of its kind in the country. It also is known as a chorus of unique versatility. Highlights of the past few seasons have included shows in major cities of the United States, Puerto Rico, South America and Eastern Europe that have won rave reviews from the public and press alike. The Glee Club incorporates dramatic lighting and scenic effects, unorthodox groupings on the stage, frequent costume changes, irrepressible humor and pertinent essays in several media." This accounts for my different assessment. Thincat (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added about a ½ dozen references that have no direct connection with the UoP. I do not buy Deathlibrarian's argument that it needs "references [that] are not independent of the University". This is not an article about the University, it is about the Glee Club, & neither it nor student press have published much that is in the citations. WP:RSSM is specifically about student media, & I only see a few citations that fit into this category. I think that in this light that most editors would agree that my comment on the talk page that there is "a lot more here than WP:RSSM". Make your argument on other grounds, because WP:RSSM/student media is not getting much traction here. Peaceray (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are numerous independent references.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO.4meter4 (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Yarrow[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The two sources that aren't unnacessible dead links are A) an interview about a concert the band would play at ([35]) and B) a student magazine (probably not a very reliable or independent source). Now the other links might be dead, but judging by the comments on the AfD from a decade ago, these are unlikely to be more than trivial puff pieces and the like. I can't find anything else; except maybe about some other band which shares the same name but is from elsewhere in the US. So, again, thorough GNG fail. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree--and there is nothing in here that suggests actual notability. Delete. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering the article was created in 2009 in a possible bit of WP:SELFPROMOTION and that the bands profile has not increased since then this does not meet GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 04:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found archive.org backups for the dead links. The band hasn't charted anywhere, and it doesn't appear to be currently active, but I think the references taken as a whole establish notability under WP:GNG, although not WP:NMUSIC. Once notable, always notable. Could I ask any nominator who encounters a broken link in an article they are considering nominating to run IAbot on the article first? History tab, then Fix dead links. Also, student media are just as reliable and independent as any other. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor references from local news fails notability Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to fail WP:GNG rather thoroughly – unsigned and dissolved band that never charted with a few mentions in local newspapers from over a decade ago. ExRat (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Watseka[edit]

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

Not seeing anything that satisfies WP:BIO. She married three times and had children. You need a bit more than that. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the strength of this biography, this historical plaque, and the claim that a city (with the same name) was possibly named after her. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Citizen Potawatomi Nation Cultural Heritage Center (source of Eastmain's first link) has a number of biographies of people of interest to the Potawatomis; some subjects are notable and others are equally unnotable, e.g. Francis Xavier Bergeron, Daniel Borassa. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's an awful lot of small towns out there with eponymous names, that doesn't necessarily mean the person is notable. Reywas92^Talk 14:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Eastmain's statement. A chief's daughter with a clear lasting legacy. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I typically give more leeway to include historical figures whose name and story has stood the test of time and endures to our day. In my opinion, this is in-line with the spirit of WP:GNG and the founding desire for Wikipedia to be as much the depository of human knowledge as possible while also maintaining credibility for being as close to accurate as possible. In this case, if she was of note for the Potawatomi people then she is notable enough to be included provided sources can be found for everything in the article. Anything not sourced should be removed. We can not go completely on oral traditions here on the encyclopedia. --ARose Wolf 17:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on statements by Eastmain, Pyrrho the Skeptic, and ARoseWolf, along with an article in Daily Journal, a post by the Bourbonnais Grove Historical Society, pages 6-7 of History of Iroquois County: Together with Historic Notes on the Northwest by Hiram Williams Beckwith, page 82 of The New McGuffey Fourth Reader by William Holmes McGuffey, page 187 of Chicago Historical Society Collection, Vol. 4, page 70 of Transactions of the Illinois State Historical Society by Illinois State Historical Society, page 58 of Sandy Nestor's Indian Placenames in America, Vol. 1, and page 13 of Salem Ely's A Centennial History of the Villages of Iroquois and Montgomery and the Township of Concord, 1818 to 1918. And that's only scratching the surface (I only went to page 3 of a search for "Watseka Indian" as the latter word especially is likely to used in older texts. The fact that the OP did not find these sources, which are relatively easy to find on the internet, mostly through a simple search on Google Books, hints at the fact that this AFD was not done in good faith, unfortunately. It is sad to see. Historyday01 (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG notability criteria. I've improved the article, adding three citations (thank you Eastmain and Historyday01 for your research) along with an image of her. There is a lot more that can be added to further improve the article as well. Netherzone (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious -- I am not seeing anything in the article to establish that she was notable or did anything but have a series of husbands. As I understand in it was quite common during the American settlement of the West for male settlers to take native wives. How is this different? Peterkingiron (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not dubious because verifiable significant coverage exists in multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time that talk about her - the very definition of GNG. Netherzone (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that the bio is verifiable but not notable. Others may disagree. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron I see you at every historical figure AfDs with WP:IDONTLIKE against many. Yes you can opinion is your own. VocalIndia (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I'm inclined to agree with the fact there's still actual historic significance and substance therefore enough for an article showing this. VocalIndia (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devonshire, Delaware[edit]

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

Subdivision lacks sufficient coverage to meet WP:GEOLAND/WP:GNG, with little potential for expansion beyond the current stub. –dlthewave ☎ 02:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill subdivision does not stand out for notability. Reywas92^Talk 13:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to this source, which was inexplicably removed from the article, there are other sources in the archives: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. Meets GEOLAND and GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can speak to the reason that the first source was removed: This news article is about the opening of a new community center at the Brandywine Town Center shopping mall, and the only connection to the topic is that the Devonshire Civic Association happened to be the first group to hold a meeting there. The community center is not part of Devonshire and I didn't think it merited a mention is the article.

The only source that could really contribute to GNG would be the "community profile" which is just a routine public interest feature in the local paper, all of the others are just passing mentions about people who happened to live in the neighborhood or minor happenings in the area. We wouldn't say a BLP with this level of coverage meets GNG (lots of minor public officials in my town have more newspaper mentions than this, but it's not enough to write an article about) and we should hold neighborhoods like this one to the same standard. –dlthewave ☎ 17:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What? Wikipedia:5P1 clearly starts that Wikipedia is a gazetteer. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons have a much higher standard than most articles (for obvious reasons) and likely why that guideline is much more extensive than Wikipedia:GEOLAND. Djflem (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLAND uses GNG for non-legally-recognized and WP:BASIC says "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I'd say they're equivalent. I'm not sure where the idea came from that GEOLAND has less-stringent standards than other topics. –dlthewave ☎ 19:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can say they're equivalent, if you like. BLP guidelines (which you brought up) are more specific. Djflem (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable housing development Superman7515 (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's one personal point of view, there are others.Djflem (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete A suburban development with no claim to notability. All the coverage above is routine local coverage which GNG and common sense say isn't good enough. Mangoe (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PredictionX[edit]

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

As far as I can tell this is an online course. It's written more like a promotional course description than anything else. References are course lists or affiliated links. The images are definitely copyright infringements.~~likely copyright infringements but some course materials might be CC for all I know~~. Citing (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insuffecient RS - lacks notability Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are either affiliated with Harvard itself or superficial coverage. The phrase traces humanity's effort to understand the future from ancient rituals to the scientific revolution to modern predictive simulations is copyvio. Given the writing style of the rest, I wouldn't be surprised if it were copied directly out of promotional materials. It would require a complete rewrite if the topic were notable, and I can't find evidence that the topic is notable. XOR'easter (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. withdrawn by nominator; I missed the fact that having singles on the UK's chart was sufficient notability. (non-admin closure) —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 8:48 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

N.B.: The close was a little messed up since it was done manually, fixing with XfDcloser. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Britton[edit]

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

Does she meet WP:SINGER? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Airs[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. Possible ATD would be a redirect, possibly to Flanders & Swann. Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This was a revue in Brighton. How long did it run? If it were notable, there should be coverage of it in newspaper and magazine reviews. I don't think a redirect would be helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insuffecient RS - lacks notability Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it was a review in Brighton, but it was a review that was pivotal in the careers of Flanders and Swann, who are one of the best-known comedy musical duos of their era. The problem with merge is where do you merge it to? To Flanders and Swan, or to Laurier Lister, both of which are notable, and both have claims of "ownership" of this review. Two of the songs in Fresh Airs made it to Flanders and Swann's drop of a hat, which was hugely well-known in its day - to the extent that it was being taught in schools when I was a kid. This is actually quite a major bit of British culture here. Elemimele (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in terms of sources, it's hard to do this sort of stuff as it belongs to the pre-internet era. But "Fresh Airs" was mentioned in the Independent obituary of Donald Swann [42] and also the New York Times obituary of Flanders [43], although admittedly in passing. A recording of "Fresh Airs" from 1955 is still available (Hat-trick CD4 bonus items) [44][45] and it is mentioned in other sites too: [46]. "Fresh Airs" is minor compared to At_the_Drop_of_a_Hat, which is another merge-target (should the decision be merge), but I still think it's a significant stepping-stone on an undoubtedly notable path. Elemimele (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elemimele, who makes a persuasive case here. Given the track record, its highly unlikely WP:BEFORE was even considered, let alone conducted. In terms of sources, Fresh Airs is also mentioned here as a key component of the works of Flanders and Swann prior to At the Drop of a Hat. And the sources provided above get us some of the way there. In summary, weak nomination, strong keep case, its probably not something that can be merged elsewhere, arguably notable in its own right, and its the combined work of multiple notable creatives. That's enough for me. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elemimele.4meter4 (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against the article being merged if it's eventually deemed necessary, but there's certainly no consensus to delete here. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vine Neighborhood, Kalamazoo[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Possible ATD is merge/redirect or just redirect to Neighborhoods of Kalamazoo, Michigan. Boleyn (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, merge, or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Neighborhoods can be notable, and this one is. See This Old House magazine here Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Neighborhoods of Kalamazoo, Michigan#Vine Neighborhoods can be notable but that doesn't mean they need separate pages, especially when there's a decent prose list for a smaller city like this (WP:NOPAGE). Reywas92^Talk 13:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GNG. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; while some may consider the NRHP entries to be WP:MILL, there are significant mentions in other sources. With respect to a merge, I think the amount of content here would be a huge and unwieldly addition to a broader-scope article, which is a key consideration for whether it should be its own separate page. jp×g 21:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neighborhoods_of_Kalamazoo,_Michigan#Vine is not huge or unwieldy. Nothing left to merge. Reywas92^Talk 02:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Pamela Rai Menges. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aerospace Research Systems, Inc[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, nothing beyond trivial mentions in Google news and Google books results. Note: I have no knowledge on aerospace engineering so I don't know the significance of anything covered in the article. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, just nothing out there. Retswerb (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found one article on Google Scholar and a one-sentence mention on a NASA memo from 2005. Simply doesn't seem notable. -Pax Verbum 05:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above - Insuffecient RS - fails WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the claims on their web home page are true then would probably meet RS notability, and I do give a little more weight to innovative engineering. However this could be sales hype .... the truth is likely somewhere in-between. I'm not likely to investigate this at the moment, but might ask a draftification. A problem is article is certainly not fit for mainspace as it stands unless RS are supporting the claims..11:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete no significant news coverage exists. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion: This articlespace has no reliable references. It should have been tagged for speedy deletion. If no reliable, independent sources are found on the web, it should be marked for deletion. Multi7001 (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The two references added do not demonstrate it meets WP:GNG. Multi7001 (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: Despite your edits, the article is still nominated for deletion and with the current votes, is likely to be deleted. @Retswerb, Pax85, Deathlibrarian, Webmaster862, and Multi7001: Do the recent edits influence your view on notability of the subject? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My views are unchanged, Lights and freedom. Adding the infobox and the information on the CEO (who may not be notable herself, but I haven't looked that deeply yet) are immaterial. The 90 day extension request in the lawsuit does not establish notability, nor does the source from the University of Cinncinati, which focuses mainly on the CEO and only mentions the company in passing. The other two references are interviews with the CEO herself, which do not strike me as reliable secondary sources. Sorry, I just don't think it's there. -Pax Verbum 00:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that it meets WP:GNG. The other internal articlespace linked has been nominated for deletion: Pamela Rai Menges. Multi7001 (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI just did a quick google search, really not much coming up. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, or Merge to Pamela Rai Menges. I actually believe there's just about enough here for a keep, but in the process of fettling the article in became obvious Pamela Rai Menges was a likely spin off article, and indeed problably the more interesting article as most things here can be said there. I have created that article, somewhat in a rush to provide a deletion alternative for this one, but it was immediately place under attack at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges. Because of my nature I am likely to become uncivil and outburst and get blocked and am therefore intendent to take a 24 hour wikibreak minimum from English Wikipedia for Djm-leighpark; which will be close to the first determination point for this AfD. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pamela Rai Menges (nominator). There seems to be some sources discussing Menges; given the subject matter (engineering research and development, which tends to be notable), this should be enough for that article. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lights and freedom, the articlespace of Pamela Rai Menges has been marked for deletion because of indications that it may not meet WP:BIO or have established sufficient notability. Feel free to join the discussion. Multi7001 (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shashikanth Ramawat[edit]

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

Non-notable choreographer/film director. The existing sources (either unreliable or passing mentions) are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG and nothing significant found in WP:BEFORE. None of the works are notable, so WP:CREATIVE is also not met. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delte as failing WP:GNG. Putu Suresha Roldán (talk) 23:38, 12 September 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 00:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no notable work. Fails WP:GNG defcon5 (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regency Tower[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NGEO. No significant coverage of the building in WP:RS, unless I'm looking in the wrong places. – DarkGlow • 19:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Newspaper archive has various stories on this subject such as [47] [48] [49] [50]. NemesisAT (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NemesisAT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG with the sources presented by NemesisAT. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the sources provided, it passes WP:NBUILDING as it was one of the structures most heavily impacted by the Oklahoma City Bombing aside from the Murrah Building and can justifiably be included within the historical scope of it, thus fulfilling the notability criteria for its historicity. Furthermore, it is the largest residential building in a top 25 US city, which lends to its social and economic importance. Pona12 (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qwest Interprise America[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable company; either delete or merge with Qwest or Lumen Technologies. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Itak Ekim[edit]

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

Other than the offline source (which does not have a page number listed for verifiability, nor can it be easily accessed), the citypopulation.de source doesn't list the village at all, and https://townsvillages.com/ng/okobo/ only lists the village's name with no other information. This is not sufficient to pass WP:GEOLAND. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article creator removed AfD tag, which I take as an objection to deletion, so relisting rather than soft deleting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Normally I would assume good faith about the offline ref, but given that the same editor added an online ref that did not verify the content it was supposed to be verifying (which I have now removed), I am not willing to do so in this case. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GEOLAND.4meter4 (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insuffecient RS - fails WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haram (short film)[edit]

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

Non-notable short film, article created by editor who works for production company, citations do not offer significant coverage of the film per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I disagree that the sources in the article are insignificant. Both of them are independent and sufficiently developed enough sources to be considered moderately in depth. However, there are only two quality RS, and a BEFORE search yielded nothing else. If we had a third quality reference I would be voting keep. As it is, not enough coverage to pass GNG or NFILM.4meter4 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This has *one* good RS - and that's all, so its not substantiated as notable. With a couple more it would be keep. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG. It has at least three articles in mainstream newspapers. [51] in Malayala Manorama, [52] in Mathrubhumi and [53] in The New Indian Express. Two of these are already cited in the article, probably more can be found in Malayalam language sources which aren't indexed well on google. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above references, though reliable, lack significant coverage. They only provide information on plot, cast and crew without any critical commentary, thus falling short of WP:NFSOURCES. Would be glad to revise my !vote if other sources are found to establish notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Surely fails WP:NF. Kolma8 (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pesos and Sense[edit]

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

I can't find any sources that are not advertising, either directly by them, or by an agency/client. Therefore, fails WP:NORG. Article is entirely promotional. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has no citations and I could not find anything significant in Google. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Don't forget WP:COI! Minkai (no talk page yet!) 13:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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