Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 07	September 09 >

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 no consensus. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Monro[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NMUSICIAN/WP:BASIC. No coverage outside of mentions in band coverage. – DarkGlow • 20:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Cat Empire. The biographical tidbits in this article are non-notable and his activities outside the band have received none of the coverage required for individual notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. He's also a programmer. He is mentioned in the Speaking clock article because he is also notable for creating a web-based simulation, Online Time Service Home Page, of the Australian "Talking Clock" 1194 service, described here: Silva, Kristian (2019-10-16). "When Telstra shut down the Talking Clock, one man took the time to salvage it". ABC News. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist chasing more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The article is about his work with the clock which makes multiple things he is known for. Article does need to be cleaned up. FiddleheadLady (talk) 12:33, 9 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 23:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of unidentified decedents in the United States[edit]

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

This is a very small random sampling of unidentified decedents in the United States which is largely sourced to the non-profit website for the The Doe Network. I'm not seeing how this indiscriminate list benefits the encyclopedia or meets the criteria at WP:NLIST. According to the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System, on average approximately 4,400 unidentified bodies are recovered every year in the United States (see here). As such, individual unidentifiable bodies are unlikely to be notable or encyclopedic. For those unidentifiable bodies that do meet GNG in rare cases, such a list is better housed on wikipedia within categories (see Category:Unidentified decedents in the United States and related sub cats) because such lists within article space inevitably attract more non-notable additions than notable ones. Further, many of the names of these unidentifiable bodies are problematic as they are named for counties which often have hundreds if not thousands of John and Jane Does in their cold case files. This list is essentially listcruft as well as having issues with NLIST and WP:OR. 4meter4 (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adendum I am also adding the following articles which are WP:Content forks of the main list.4meter4 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the following:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The NamUs link above indicates that of the 4,400 annual unidentified bodies each year, 1,000 remain so after a year. I would guess many of them are identified after that still, and that number is perhaps lower in recent years with better DNA testing. But with just 140 in this main list, 108 of which are sourced to the Doe Network, it's unclear why these among the thousands are listed. Most are sadly fairly routine descriptions of discovery and personal characteristics, so I don't see why it is encyclopedic to import these non-notable examples from the Doe and NamUs databases in this way. Reywas92^Talk 03:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Agree with making this a category for the notable individuals instead of a series of lists that are not reasonable given the numbers of individuals. FiddleheadLady (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Per WP:NOTDATABASE. Ravenswing 01:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm the one who added the 50+ cases or so to each page. The idea behind doing so was to help give these cases some exposure to help spread the word about cases that had *some* note to them, compared to "this decedent was found in a desert area near Las Vegas" with no further elaboration while not dedicating an entire page to a case that would not have enough information to create a page of substance. Blame me for why it got so out of control, but this sampler was meant to be a way for people to discover certain cases that had some significance but not enough to dedicate their own page to, as it would lead to a stub page. I've dedicated about a year and a half of spare time to trying to expand out this list, as it was originally the reason I got so interested in the subject matter, but I do see what others are saying about how its written compared to other pages. Doe Network usually sources their material, mainly from the NamUs system, a government database designed to catalogue missing and unidentified persons, however at the time, when I made most of these expansions, Doe Network was a lot more accessible for me to use as a source than the latter. For the more specific ones concerning states, many states have much more cases than others (California has over 2000 compared to New Hampshire's 4), so rather than clog up an already long page, I made the more specific ones to keep the strain on this one lower, as well as keep the number of cases on the main page between each state relatively similar. Aside from varying up sources, what can I and the dozen or so other users that have dedicated their time to these pages do to keep them better kept and at a lower risk of deletion? I'm not very versed in Wikipedia's more internal pages like this one so I'm sorry if the syntax of this deviates from the norm somewhat. Doggybag2355 (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Doggybag2355 In what way do you think the cases you have added fall under wikipedia's notability guidelines? The unidentified decedents you have added are largely sourced to one source, The Doe Network website, and you have assigned arbitrary names to those bodies not based in the source; basically drawing your own unique conclusions and creating what amounts to WP:Original Synthesis. There is a reason why we have policies like WP:No original research and the need to verify content with multiple reliable sources (see WP:Verifiability). Additionally, The Doe Network profiles are essentially copy pasted law enforcement case files with law enforcement/NAMUS case numbers as titles, and are therefore not independent but are considered primary sources. Therefore, these individual unidentifiable decendents lack independent RS which makes them unsuitable for use within wikipedia per WP:PRIMARY (unless they are being used in conjunction with secondary and tertiary sources which isn’t the case in this list). All of this to say, how is this encyclopedic? Wikipedia's purpose and role is not to advocate or draw attention to unidentified decedent cases. It seems like you created these pages as a tool for advocacy outside of wikipedia's purview which is a WP:POV and WP:COI issue as described at Wikipedia:Advocacy.4meter4 (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's my bad then. I didn't make these pages, at least this one and California, I only expanded on them. I don't need to be berated on why the pages aren't good enough, you've made your point. I thought I was doing a service by expanding on these pages, but apparently not. Doggybag2355 (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doggybag2355 Please don't take this personally. Your heart was in the right place, and I think you were just not aware of why these kind of contributions are not really appropriate for wikipedia. Now you know. The statements above are necessary conversations pertinent to this AFD that have to be had in order to implement wikipedia policy, and are not meant to berate you personally but address the need to delete inappropriate content. If we allowed advocacy work on wikipedia, our neutrality and reliability as an encyclopedia would be jeopardized, and that is something we have to protect. I hope you will find some other way of contributing to the project that interests you. Please take some time to read through our core policies pages though, so you don't accidentally step into something controversial a second time.4meter4 (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're a moron, wow. 142.67.230.105 (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 19:46, 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Interactive[edit]

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

Paid promotional spam article. After I cleared out all the business booster blogs, pay-for-play marketing awards and dead links (which may or may not have ever worked), this is what was left. A WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of independent in-depth coverage in WP:RSes to meet the requirements of WP:CORP or WP:GNG, just a flurry of passing mentions and a little press release churnalism. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would need to be shown. David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gnews only turns up press releases, nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All I could find was press releases as well. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. FiddleheadLady (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly just trying to get hits for his business. Not notable. W Nowicki (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails NCORP and is the corporate equivalent of a vanity article BilledMammal (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is not met here Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 19:45, 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don Goldwater[edit]

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

WP:POLITICIAN Failed candidate in one race rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barry Goldwater's nephew and he lost an election 10 yrs ago. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 01:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. FiddleheadLady (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, notability is not inherited so having a famous uncle doesn't boost him at all, there's no other claim here that he had preexisting notability for other reasons independently of a candidacy, and there's not nearly enough substance or reliable sourcing to suggest a reason why his candidacy should be deemed more special than other people's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Notable uncle, but notability is not inherited, and even if it was that connection would be a bit of a stretch BilledMammal (talk) 01:49, 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) 23:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Applause (software company)[edit]

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

fails NCORP: Everything here is a mere announcement. or a mention DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No RS footprint. A sea of funding rounds. I can't even tell if they actually do anything - David Gerard (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The tech crunch articles are written by reporters and seem legitimate to me. Is there something I am missing as to why these don't count as notable? The rest is a bunch of dead links and PR. Just would like to understand better before voting. FiddleheadLady (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. TechCrunch is specifically listed at WP:RSP as "TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability" - it's a startup boosterism outlet - and 2. it's all funding rounds, which are a mere numerical measure under WP:CORP and don't count toward notability - David Gerard (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for responding! This is very useful information for me. FiddleheadLady (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per conversation above. FiddleheadLady (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article reads like a promotional writeup, and fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.TH1980 (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above assessments, references fail WP:ORGIND/WP:CORPDEPTH, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:41, 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 draftify to Draft:Harry Thompson (Hollyoaks). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Thompson (Hollyoaks)[edit]

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

There's been two rounds of edit-warring in the psat few weeks as to whether there should be an article at this title or not, with DarkGlow, Cjquines10, and Polyamorph opposed and 108.20.174.38 (the author) the only one in favor. Per WP:BLAR, best to take this here and get a formal consensus. I submit that this is WP:FANCRUFT, maybe appropriate for a fan wiki but not for Wikipedia. If there is a case for an article, I think WP:TNT would still apply since almost all of the content is in-universe information. Restore redirect. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - it's 100 kilobytes of long rambling plot summary, and it was largely sourced to The Sun. This would be ideal for a Hollyoaks fan wiki, but not here - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without deletion protecting it or sanctioning users as appropriate. It is not appropriate to take action against content, even content of little discernible value, on the basis of editor conduct. Even if it looks like trash, there is value in preserving the material in the history of the redirect so that it could be merged if appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Little value to the encyclopedia, as this is mostly plot summary there is no justification for an independent article and this character is already covered in the list article. Polyamorph (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know First, I want to point out some inaccuracies in this discussion. Tamzin claimed that DarkGlow, Cjquines10 and Polyamorph all opposed to have this article. Here's some context. When I posted my first version, DarkGlow and Cjquines10 did oppose it, and DarkGlow pointed out some problems of the article. I made some changes based on his advice and posted my second version. There were still some problems in the new version, but I assume that DarkGlow doesn't insist on deleting it anymore, he even did some editing to this article himself. David Gerard claimed that my article was largely sourced to The Sun. It did have some references from The Sun, but it was a small portion of my references. It wouldn't have a big impact if I remove these references. Actually, all these references could also be found in other sources. By the way, this article is about a soap character, and The Sun is not more unreliable than other sources regarding soap. I'm new to Wikipedia edit, although I frequently read Wikipedia articles. I'm surprised that there are so many low-quality articles full of wrong information out there and no one takes action, including the section I tried to replace with my article. It turns out that people do take action, just not where I expect. I just want to help to improve Wikipedia. Now I know the problems in my article, and I can improve it. If the plot is too detailed, I can make it more concise. As for Polyamorph, I really don't know why he opposes this article. Every time he provided different reasons, so I don't know if I could ever satisfy him by improving my article. I just don't understand why people are so determined to kill my article. I'm not sure if I want to put effort to improve my article just being deleted later without any taces left. 108.20.174.38 (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unclear of my rationale, read my !vote directly above your own.Polyamorph (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had read your post. I had also read your previous posts about my article. At different times, you provided the following reasons: 1)no justification for independent article for this minor character. 2)this character is already covered in the list article. 3)this is mostly plot summary. He was initially a minor character, but since 2015 he was no longer a minor character. Many characters in that list have their own articles, and some of those articles were expanded from the sections in the list article. The plot is too detailed. You added this later and it was also pointed out by other people. I know this is a problem, but if you oppose my article for the other two reasons, I can't change your mind by improving my article.108.20.174.38 (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I added the tag {{Long plot}} before restoring the redirect, so it is misleading to suggest I've altered my rationale. I didn't include it in my first edit summary but edit summaries are not the best place for a fully justified rationale anyway, they are quickly written to give other users an idea of what edits were made and why. There is currently no justification for a standalone article that is essentially all plot when the character is already covered in the list article. Polyamorph (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. This article has potential; a simple WP:BEFORE would show you that the character has significant in-depth coverage across WP:RS. It may not be perfect as it stands since it relies on a lot of plot information, but this article is not non-notable and AfD is not a cleanup tool. As I am on the AfC committee, I can oversee the progress made on the article if it were draftified and accept/decline based on its quality. I consider myself to be a good judge of soap article quality since I have created several soap-related articles which are rated as GAs. – DarkGlow • 08:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify if there is anyone who wants to salvage this. Right now this is gigantic piece of plot summary WP:FANCRUFT with a reception section that's two sentences; one is mostly irrelevant (about the actor), second is about fans wanting to see the character back (run-of-the-mill for anything these days). No evidence this meets WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - This article is really messy but the subject itself is notable. There are so many better sources available and the duration of this AFD will not be enough time to fix it. It can be rewritten and refocused on treating it like the work of fiction it is. This will be a time consuming because it really is in-universe and goes on forever - but putting it into draft form will give those interested the chance to improve it.Rain the 1 15:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever I'm not sure if I want to save this article anymore. Maybe I should give up. I'm here not to convince anyone because I know how hard it is. I just want to express my opinion. Everyone here except me is a veteran editor. You guys know that many articles started from problematic drafts then got improved over time, so if an article can be improved, maybe we shouldn't rush to delete it. It's inappropriate to give inaccurate or misleading information in an article, and I think this also applies to the discussion here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus claimed that my article was just a plot summary and a reception section. I'm not sure why he ignored all other sections. The reception section is brief, but it's not two sentences. In the first paragraph of this section, I listed the nominations and awards received by this character and the actor for portraying this character. I don't know why Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus thinks this is irrelevant. Some of the awards were for the character and some of them were voted by the audiences. This is exactly the reception to the character from critics and audiences. It's normal practice to include awards in the reception section in an article for a TV character. 108.20.174.38 (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The other sections are still mostly plot summaries. Information on awards to the actor primarily belongs in the article on the actor, it was he who received the awards, not the fictional character. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The other sections are not plot, but you can't avoid plot when you are talking about a TV character. Some of the awards were for the character not for the actor. Even if the awards were for the actor, they were for portraying the character, you can't say it's irrelevant. Actually, in every article about a TV or movie character, the awards are included if they got some. 108.20.174.38 (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per DarkGlow.4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per suggestions by other editors. In the event that the primary author of the article is not interested in improving the article in draft space to a reasonable standard and abandons, it will be deleted after 6 months of inactivity anyway. Haleth (talk) 07:51, 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) 20:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anemostat[edit]

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

It looks like this was kept at a 2007 AfD with the rationale that the subject is a widely used device and the name could become genericized. I'm having trouble finding any useful sources to expand this article: nothing on Pubmed, very little on Google Scholar. The hits I'm seeing on Google are almost all to the company with the same name rather than describing a widespread air distribution device. Am I looking in the wrong place, or does the subject not meet WP:GNG? Ajpolino (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it became popular as a device. A G-newspaper search turns up a listing for a distributor in Singapore from 1997... Sweet nothing after that. Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one published paper from Turkey that talked about two different kinds of anemostats they were testing, but that is it. FiddleheadLady (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically trying to advertise the inventor by using the device name as article title for hedging. nirmal (talk) 00:36, 10 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cybex[edit]

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

Previously redirected to Cybex International, an apparently unrelated exercise equipment company. All of the news coverage I can find is either product reviews or passing mentions of their products. I don't see any coverage of the company qua company, and the statements in the article about employees and turnover (which regardless don't establish notability) are unsourced. Revert to redirect. (If kept, this should probably still be moved to something like Cybex (child safety product manufacturer), restoring the redirect but leaving a hatnote at the other Cybex.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please find more information about the company on the german Wikipedia page here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybex -- Devlerr^{[cetacean needed]} 14:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a notable company that is on every list for best baby gear. I added some sources and fixed some of the German translation that was being confused about the turnover. Additionally, redirecting it does not make sense as they are two entirely different companies. FiddleheadLady (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying to redirect it because, regardless of whether we have an article for this Cybex, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the name "Cybex" appears to be the other company. And how does being on some product-review lists establish SigCov? There are many non-notable brands that have well-regarded products. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Kindersitz CybexCybex im Markencheck" [CybexCybex child seat in the brand check]. Focus (in German). 2014-07-02. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  From Google Translate: "Not cute, please, cool: Cybex designs child seats for trend-conscious parents. The products of the Franconian brand are also loved by international stars like Michelle Hunziker and Gwen Stefani. Cybex in the brand check. What is Cybex? The child seats and strollers with a star factor: Cybex has many fans among the celebrities. For example, Michelle Hunziker and Amber Rose pack their babies in models from the lifestyle brand. ... Cybex is the youngster among the child seat brands: The company Martin Pos was founded in 2005. [quote from Pos] Today Cybex is based in Bayreuth, Franconia, with more than 200 employees."
2. Sommerer, Ulrike (2016-12-16). "Cybex: Feiern und feuern" [Cybex: Celebrate and fire]. de:Nordbayerischer Kurier (in German). Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The article has negative coverage about the subject in discussing layoffs and how (from Google Translate) "As soon as the resignation letter was on the desk, the dismissed people were escorted out of the company, says one of them. He doesn't want to read his name in the newspaper. He had already seen this happen to colleagues beforehand. They disappeared overnight". The article provides background coverage about the company (from Google Translate): "Martin Pos founded the company in 2005 with a few employees in Kulmbach, six years ago Cybex moved to Bayreuth. In 2014 he sold the Bayreuth company to the Chinese market leader Goodbaby. Martin Pos has been CEO of Goodbaby International since January (child car seats, buggies, beds, playpens, baby and children's equipment)."
3. Ehrentraut, Dominik (2010-11-26). "Alles außer spießig" [Everything but stuffy]. Die Welt (in German). Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  From Google Translate: "In 2005 he founded Cybex. Today the company employs around 100 people and has offices in Austria, the Czech Republic, Italy, Hong Kong, China and the USA. Another is to open soon in South Korea. The company sells its products in 50 countries and has annual sales of around 37 million euros. Even Hollywood stars like Sarah Jessica Parker and Matt Damon have been out and about with his strollers."
4. Williams, Gisela (2015-12-11). "Jeremy Scott Adds Fashion Sparkle to Baby Strollers". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The article notes: "And at 6:30, the fashion designer Jeremy Scott arrived with Martin Pos, the founder of Cybex. Is Cybex a cutting-edge fashion label? Far from it. The company, based in southern Germany, makes highly engineered baby strollers and car seats that have become popular among jet-setting European and Hollywood parents. In 2013, Cybex commissioned Mr. Scott, the creative director of Moschino, to design a fashion-forward line of diaper bags, car seats and strollers."
5. Wetzstein, Jürgen (2021-03-30). "Cybex steigt ins sportliche Sortiment ein" [Cybex enters the sporty range]. velobiz.de (in German). Fritsch & Wetzstein Verlag. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  From Google Translate: "The Cybex brand is particularly established in the field of children's equipment. With the new sports range, the Bayreuth-based company is advancing into new product areas and also in the direction of bicycles. Child car seats, baby seats and strollers - these are product areas in which the Cybex brand has so far been firmly positioned."
6. Huang, Keira Lu (2014-01-29). "Stroller maker Goodbaby buys Cybex". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The article notes: "Established in Germany in 2005, Columbus has a presence across continental Europe, Britain and Hong Kong. For 2011, the company registered profit before taxation of HK$15.5 million, which then surged to HK$49.2 million in 2012." The article notes that Columbus Holding "is responsible for design and sales under Cybex" and that Goodbaby purchased it.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cybex GmbH to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know which of Cybex GmbH (the "GmbH" legal status suffix is from https://cybex-online.com/en-us/privacy-policy) and Cybex International is the primary topic. That can be determined through a Wikipedia:Requested moves that discusses WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) in mind. This AfD is for determining whether Cybex is notable so discussion should be focused on that. Cunard (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources on the German wiki and Cunard's source; topic appears to meet WP:NCORP. Primary topic can, as Cunard said, be decided later in a RM. BilledMammal (talk) 01:51, 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. In the sense of "not delete". There is consensus that this is no longer a deletion candidate after the TV Tropes content was removed and the article rewritten. There is disagreement about a possible merger, but that can be followed up in a merger discussion on the article talk page. Sandstein 09:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supernovae in fiction[edit]

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

TVTropes laundry list of every minor usage in fiction. There are no sources establishing that the topic itself is independently notable outside of the context of its parent article. There is nothing necessitating coverage outside of the main article other than the typical lazy dumping of content. If the topic needs any coverage at all, it needs to be through a proper summary style section per MOS:POPCULT. TTN (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the stubbification of content where 0% of the original content is retained because it would have just been easier to put it in the main article rather than keep history which was literally a massive waste of time for everyone previously involved, but that's just a personal pet peeve. Regardless, we're no longer talking about the same article, so it's pointless to keep this up. Withdraw.

Delete WP:NLIST fails completely. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now Interesting outcome. Do some of the other list articles need to be converted to non-list encyclopedic analyses like this one? rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would say so, yes. I did the same with Immortality in fiction (though that one wasn't brought to AfD), and I'm planning to do Black holes in fiction next. TompaDompa (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - There is pretty much no salvageable material here, as it is simply a list of almost entirely non-notable plot elements. There are very few reliable sources, and none of them actually discuss the overall concept that would help this list pass WP:LISTN, and simply confirm a few pieces of plot. If any sources can actually be found that give some sort of analysis on the actual overall concept of how supernovae are used or depicted in fiction, then perhaps an additional section could be created on the main Supernova article discussing it, but this "list of times the word supernova was used" certainly would not be helpful to that. Rorshacma (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY - If the article winds up remaining a stub, I still think it would be better to include the information in the main article, but that discussion does not need to be decided now. As far as this AFD goes, TompaDompa has once again completely rewritten a useless list of trivia into an acceptable prose stub, so deletion is no longer necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Largely unsourced pop culture trivia. The sources are on the article show that 'yes, there are supernovae in this work of fiction' but don't show that 'Supernovae in fiction' as a whole is notable. Waxworker (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there are: 1, 2 Google books references treating supernovae in fiction as a class, and a couple of Google scholar findings that I will have to dig to access. Overall, while the list may need trimming, I'm seeing a reasonable case for keeping it as a standalone list as "supernovae in fiction" appears to be treated as a topic by multiple RS. Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has been completely overhauled by TompaDompa. None of the arguments for deletion fit to this new version any more. As yet it is only of stub length, but the secondary sources found by Jclemens above and TompaDompa in the article do discuss the overall concept, as Rorshacma requested, and show that the subject does fulfill WP:GNG. (I am assuming that sources refering to supernovae and novae in fiction both count, as these terms are used interchangeably in science-fiction, as is in turn attested by secondary sources.) I ask the nominator to withdraw the nomination in light of this new situation. Daranios (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with parts of the nomination: Listing every time X appears in fiction is what TV Tropes does, and we should get rid of articles like that on Wikipedia (in general, I quite agree with the essay WP:CARGO—fiction is not fact and collecting raw data does not produce analysis). However, just as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, there is sufficient coverage in WP:Reliable sources to convert this into a proper, encyclopaedic prose article about the concept of supernovae in fiction. I have started the process of doing so. I also completely disagree with the suggestion that a "in popular culture" section be written in the main supernova article—if there isn't enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone article, there isn't enough for such a section either (and conversely: if there is enough to warrant a section, it's better to create a separate article). I would prefer outright deletion to merging this into Supernova#In popular culture (although I think deletion would be misguided as it would be way better to just write a prose article). TompaDompa (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Daranios. RomanSpa (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an obvious case of WP:HEY. /Julle (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stars and planetary systems in fiction (Note: Stars in fiction redirects there). This is based on my source review for Supernovae/Supernova/Nova:

The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction aka http://sf-encyclopedia.com/search-results has no entry on this

Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction - Brian Ash - not in the index of concepts, some passing mentions in some entries

Brave new words the Oxford dictionary of science fiction by Jeff Prucher - has entry on term 'go nova' (p.80), 'go supernova' (p.81), but those are just brief notes, not SIGCOV analysis. No entry on supernova itself

Encyclopedia Of Science Fiction (Library Movements) by Don DAmmassa - no entry, some passing mentions in some entries

The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction by Mann, George - no entry, some passing mentions in some entries. Has entry on 'Stars'.

The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy - same as above

The New encyclopedia of science fiction by Gunn, James E - no entry, some passing mentions in some entries

Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia - has entry on "Nova" (stellar phenomena, not some work)

The reason for merge rather than keep is that based on my review, there is no WP:SIGCOV of the concept of "Supernovas in fiction" outside one work. The new entry, now rewritten, is still based on few mentions in passing, and the only exception to go on is the one and a half-page entry in the last reviewed work. My interpretation of GNG is that we need at least two reliable, in-depth sources for something to be notable. All that said, the newly rewritten entry is well written and should not be deleted. Merging to the target article and redirecting this there should satisfy all policies. Ping all participants in the discussion: @TTN, Rsjaff, Rorshacma, Waxworker, Jclemens, Daranios, TompaDompa, RomanSpa, and Julle:. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I didn't offer a bolded !vote above, and I don't think I have changed my position that there are multiple reasonable outcomes here. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Next to the "Nova" chapter in Science Fact and Science Fiction, we have the chapter "Stellar Evolution: Supernovas, Pulsars and Black Holes", pp. 38-43 in The Physics and Astronomy of Science Fiction. So split by three topics I'd assume there's ca. 2 pages on our subject. But let's take the time of a closer look: p. 38 bottom to p. 39 middle is the scientific background about supernovae neccessary; p. 39 middle to p. 42 top then gives usages, examples and implications of super/novas in sci-fi. So I think we have two in-depth secondary sources here without looking further into the other sources used by TompaDompa, which is enough for my part. Daranios (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree with Daranios' assessment about there being sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article (but then I would, wouldn't I?). I think the suggestion to merge this to stars and planetary systems in fiction is misguided, since this content would seem very out of place there. It might be a good idea to create an article about different types of stars/astronomical objects in fiction (black holes, supernovae, neutron stars, and so on), but I'm not sure, and that should probably be discussed separately from this AfD. TompaDompa (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stars and planetary systems in fiction Per Piotrus and WP:ATD._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:53, 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Romero[edit]

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

A very similar case to Andrea Giménez (also of Barcelona) and Paula Mateo. Non-notable squad player of the semi-pro era with no apparent WP:GNG-level coverage. The two sources are a brief interview from her club's own website, clearly failing the requirements to be independent (WP:IS) or reliable (WP:RS) and a trivial Marca mention.

I have conducted a search of Marca, several Google searches, including some in conjunction with clubs that she was on the books of, and a Spanish source search. No significant coverage was found. The best I can find were a Futfem transfer announcement and being mentioned once in an AS article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:19, 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. Multiple reliable independent sources have been provided to meet WP:GNG (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Salvation Army Ray & Joan Kroc Corps Community Centers[edit]

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

They exist, but I couldn't establish that they meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Joan Kroc, the donor and namesake of these centers, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives for deletion. Cunard (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my support for a merge. I changed to "keep" below after finding significant coverage and analysis in multiple independent reliable sources. There is enough analysis about Kroc Centers to support a standalone article. Cunard (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They're is many hundreds of thousands of these places in the Salvation Army, and there is no indication that it is notable. scope_creep^Talk 13:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Joan Croc as there is reliable news coverage but not enough for a seperate article imv , Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC) struck vote as per below Atlantic306 (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG Not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is not significant coverage.RamotHacker (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now, let it go.Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there merge-worthy content that isn't at the proposed target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Kiser, Sabrina (2017). Merritt, John G.; Satterlee, Allen (eds.). Historical Dictionary of The Salvation Army (2 ed.). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 328–329. ISBN 978-1-5381-0212-1. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The book has a six-paragraph entry about Kroc Centers.
  The book notes: "In October 2003, two years after the opening of the San Diego Kroc Center, Mrs. Kroc bequeathed $1.5 billion to The Salvation Army upon her passing. The gift—which comprised much of Mrs. Kroc's estate—was not only the largest charitable gift ever received by The Salvation Army but in fact the largest gift ever given to any single charity at one time and the second largest gift provided from an individual to a third-party charity in American history. ...Between 2002 and 2014, 26 Kroc Centers were built across 20 states in the United States of America and in Puerto Rico. The locations are as follows: [list of all locations] ...Kroc Centers have also been recipients of national attention. In May 2015, less than a year after its October 2014 opening, the Camden, New Jersey, Kroc Center was selected to host visiting President Barack Obama as he delivered a speech to the community. [more details]"
2. Budrys, Grace (2013). How Nonprofits Work: Case Studies in Nonprofit Organizations. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 59. ISBN 978-1-4422-2105-5. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The book notes: "An excellent illustration of the problems a generous donation can present has unfolded in recent years after Joan Kroc, wife of McDonald's Corporation founder Ray Kroc, gave the Salvation Army $87 million to build a center in San Diego with three swimming pools, an indoor ice skateboard rink, a sports playing field, and a 600-seat theater. Upon her death in 2003, she bequeathed $1.5 billion to build another thirty to forty Kroc Centers in low-income communities (Strom 2006). They did not have to be exactly the same as the San Diego Center, but they were to have many of the same features. ... Here's the problem Mrs. Kroc left enough money to cover half of the funds needed to operate the centers. That means the Salvation Army would have to raise as much as $70 million a year to cover the other half of the cost of operating the centers. [four sentences elaborating on this] ... As it turns out, the leadership was right to be worried. As of the middle of June 2009, of the thirty centers that were projected, four had been completed; two others were scheduled to open later in the year, plus five others next year; two were abandoned in the planning stages. The problem is that the Salvation Army was able to raise only 34 percent of the $214 million that it needed to operate the centers (Strom 2009, 13)."
3. Phillips, Patricia; Ricke-Kiely, Theresa (2014). "Supersizing Philanthropic Leadership: The Case of the Salvation Army Ray and Joan Kroc Center". The International Journal of Servant-Leadership. 10 (1). Gonzaga University: 177–191. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The article notes: "The money was designated to build state-of-the-art Ray and Joan Kroc Corps Community Centers nationwide, patterned after the flagship Kroc Center in San Diego. Kroc Centers are comprehensive community centers where children and families enjoy recreational, educational, and artistic activities that would otherwise be beyond their reach. ... For the Salvation Army, the Kroc Center provoked a myriad of responses from the community. Many stakeholders were positive and enthusiastic about the dream of this community center becoming more tangible. But skeptics continued to revisit the promises of the past that had been made to this west-side community, and to recall how pledges fell short."
4. Hurd, Amy; Anderson, Denise M.; Mainieri, Tracy L. (2021). Kraus' Recreation and Leisure in Modern Society (12 ed.). Burlington, Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Learning. p. 111. ISBN 978-1-284-20503-9. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The book notes: "In 1998, Joan Kroc, widow of McDonald's founder Ray Kroc, in making a $90 million donation to the Salvation Army of San Diego, California, started what would become a nationwide impact on the services provided to communities by the Salvation Army through funds designed to build comprehensive community centers. ... Today, there are 26 centters in cities such as [list]. ... An example of the success of the Kroc Centers comes from Greenville, South Carolina, whose Kroc Center opened in 2011. Conservatively, the Greenville Kroc Center contributed over $5,482,934 annually (2014) in local value, bringing economic and social vitality to the community through its programming, spending, and support of community members and organizations."
5. Stern, Ken (2013). With Charity for All: Why Charities Are Failing and a Better Way to Give. New York: Anchor Books. pp. 145–147. ISBN 978-0307-74381-7. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The book notes: "It's hard for anyone, let alone a charity that rings bells for spare change, not to get moony over a billion and a half dollars, but in fact the Kroc gift was met with considerable trepidation within the Army's headquarters. It was not the value of the community centers per se that concerned the organization's leadership but the risk of undermining its core efforts. ... The Kroc gift carried substantial risk for the Salvation Army: management distraction and inattention to core services, public confusion over the operations and brand of the Salvation Army, and potential diversion of funds from core operations if the Kroc centers did not prove self-sufficient. Moreover, while the San Diego Kroc Center was beautiful, the service value of the center was unclear and untested by meaningful measure. These were all persuasive arguments against taking the gift, but ultimately the magnetic pull of $1.5 billion was simply too strong. In January 2004, about three months after the death of Mrs. Kroc, the Salvation Army finally announced the historic gift. The Kroc estate began the distribution in January 2005; by that time, investment gains had grown the gift to $1.8 billion, sufficient to fund a planned twenty-seven centers around the country."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kroc Centers to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep have changed from merge to keep in view of the multiple reliable sources showing significant coverage of the topic as evidenced above by Cunard which all together shows that a seperate article is warranted after all, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:18, 12 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) 13:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Jha[edit]

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

Actor with no starring roles in several notable productions and no indication of GNG. Faizal batliwala (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted as it is enough referenced and the actor is notable. ksabhishekbhojpuri (talk) 08:48, 05 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rferences are weak. non notable actor fails WP:GNG.JeepersClub (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR Princepratap1234 (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are you sure? The article lists several productions that he has appeared in, and so does IMDB. Film credits don't have to be leading roles, just significant ones. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable productions." Only one film listed has an article but no reviews are cited. Others are non-notable, so the question of significant roles does not arise. The coverage is not enough to pass WP:GNG either. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NACTOR. defcon5 (talk) 05:20, 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 redirect to Hockessin, Delaware. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quaker Hill, Delaware[edit]

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

Could not find any evidence of a community called Quaker Hill at this location. Topos show nothing until a subdivision was built in the 70s or 80s, and the name doesn't appear on maps until 2011. Newspaper searches only returned a neighborhood in Wilmington of the same name. My best guess is that it's another subdivision (we're up to three now that I'm aware of) named after Hockessin Friends Meeting. –dlthewave ☎ 01:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete I would guess that this was a subdivision entered from the usual commercial map, but unfortunately GNIS is down for now, so I can't verify that. Anyway, the topos and aerials show nothing but standard suburban development out of a tract of former farmland. Mangoe (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Hockessin, Delaware, of which it is part. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meeting House Hill, Delaware, which one assumes is referred to above. Djflem (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we're considering a redirect, we should think about whether Quaker Hill Historic District (Wilmington, Delaware), Wilmington, Delaware#East of I-95 or a disambiguation page of some sort would be more appropriate, since the Wilmington neighborhood seems to be the primary topic and we're struggling to verify that this one even exists. –dlthewave ☎ 22:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If a redirect is to be considered, a consensus on the target is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hockessin, Delaware, as it is within the boundaries of the CDP. The Wilmington neighborhood is several miles away. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy, my concern is that readers looking for the Wilmington neighborhood would be directed to Hockessin with no explanation. I'm not sure that we can even mention Quaker Hill in that article without confirmation of what it is. –dlthewave ☎ 12:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hockessin, Delaware. USGS maps show a couple streets and a couple houses in 1901, 1904, 1943, 1954, (the same number of streets and houses, even). The next map below 1:100k scale is 1993, which shows a few cul-de-sacs coming off the road. After that, it's 2011, 2016 and 2019; the USGS decided in their infinite wisdom to stop including useful information on quadrangles at this point, so I don't know how many houses there are, but it doesn't look like much. Google Maps puts the closest thing that isn't a house as Dupont (H.B.) Middle School, which is in Hockessin, Delaware. I will change to "keep" if sources can be found demonstrating that Quaker Hill is a real place name that's been used to refer to anything in archives. What I've found is a few mentions like these, referring to it as a neighborhood. Perhaps @Firsfron: can assist. jp×g 20:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that a redirect to Hockessin would be confusing to readers searching for the Wilmington neighborhood of the same name, especially since we don't have any sources that could support even a mention in the Hockessin article. We don't even know what it is/was! This is definitely about the Wilmington neighborhood, and the two rental ads [1][2] also appear to be in Wilmington. –dlthewave ☎ 01:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, surely there could be a redirect hatnote, and the GNIS source from the extant Quaker Hill article could support a sentence saying "it was listed in GNIS as an inhabited place" or something similar? jp×g 19:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with WP:GNIS? I'm afraid it's not a reliable source for labeling something as a populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 03:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it shows that there is (or was) something called Quaker Hill at that place, somewhen. I don't think a redirect requires that high a burden of proof, beyond "someone might type this in wondering what the hell Quaker Hill is". jp×g 08:36, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boccanegra (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Name list is already at Boccanegra, which also has a hatnote to the variant (one c, not two) Bocanegra (disambiguation). The other "see also" entry to the opera is only a WP:PARTIAL match and unneccesary. —Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom who did a fine job on Boccanegra. Geschichte (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this seems mostly procedural and is probably a good candidate for early closure. For reference, WP:BEFORE is represented in the efforts here and this seems well thought through. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:14, 9 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) 13:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Barnes[edit]

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

Part-time actor and musician. Has had 1 uncredited role in a film and is in a band that have yet to make any recordings. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:NMUSICIAN. John B123 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Seems very promotional. KidAd • SPEAK 20:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Picture of him working at butcher shop tells the whole story: not a notable actor/musician currently, has high hopes. I wish him well. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails the requirements of WP:NMUSICIAN / WP:NACTOR. Dan arndt (talk) 09:09, 9 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 delete. G5 ~TNT (she/they • talk) 15:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC) ~TNT (she/they • talk) 15:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Bhujbal[edit]

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

Appointment to a government committee does not meet requirements for a notable politician, nor do minor awards. Previously created by a blocked editor and deleted; recently created again by a new editor without going through AfC. David notMD (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir David notMD, Vishal Bhujbal is notable because he got awards from Faggan Singh Kulaste and Sanjay Dhotre who are very notable figures. Vishal Bhujbal is doing very good work in social working field. Please search about him on Google sir. You will get alots of articles. And i don't know who had created it before me but yes it was created by a banned or blocked user. Thank you JamesAlfa (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Getting awards from notable people does not make him notable. The National Youth Icon and Bharat Youth awards are not notable. My nomination based on lack of references that confirm notability; has nothing to do with it being previously deleted. David notMD (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. nearlyevil 665 15:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: G5, created by sock of Arshifakhan61 (globally banned user) Java Hurricane 15:34, 8 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 delete. Obvious sock and clear-cut G11. There is no need for this to run a week Star Mississippi 18:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadreza Nouri[edit]

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

Promotional article; no obvious reliable sources with required depth-of-coverage; the only sources with more than a mention appear to be press releases. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Spam, barely avoids A7 and G11. Java Hurricane 14:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On looking further, there's a big mass of ELs simply to promote him and his works, and it seems to be an autobiography. Given all this, it might even qualify for G11. Java Hurricane 14:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many if not most of the sources refer to a event in Toronto [3] where Nouri presented a work called Human's Scream. I can find no independent coverage of Nouri's work in the press, neither in local, regional nor national papers. Vexations (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably should be speedied under WP:A7/WP:G11 but it looks like this may lead to a WP:SNOW-close anyway. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - will likely become eligible for WP:G5 deletion very shortly but, until then, delete per all of the above Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 8 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 delete as G7. ✗plicit 23:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Urigull[edit]

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

Hoax? Completely unverifiable, the sources given are copies of Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like a hoax to me, and even if the lake does exist I strongly doubt it passes WP:GEOLAND. Java Hurricane 15:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (edit conflict) The source cites our Sutherland article where Loch Urigull appears in an unsourced list of inland lochs which was added in 2019. Could not find any other sourcing; even if this place does exist, it clearly doesn't merit a standalone article. –dlthewave ☎ 15:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess it's a mis-spelling, or possibly an alternative, for Loch Urigill. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Mutt says it's a mis-spelling but there's no point moving the article because, even for Loch Urigill, the information is entirely wrong. Urigill is notable, a couple of miles long, just southeast of Elphin, Highland. Thincat (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G7 given the author's comment on the page "Delete this page it's a mistake, it's an accident". eviolite (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added speedy deletion tag at the same moment. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They've also posted to that effect on my talk page. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found. nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:13, 8 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) 13:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Philadelphia Athenaeum[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/South Philadelphia Athenaeum (2nd nomination)

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Short-lived venue that was likely never notable and has, in any event, disappeared with barely a trace. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It existed for about a year and nothing has been written about it since, per Gnews. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 8 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. Notability not positively established. The sources about various recordings and releases seem to dissolve under more scrutiny. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sung-Hee Kim-Wüst[edit]

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

No indication that this person meets any criterion of notability. Nothing on JSTOR, no verifiable hit on Gbooks, two hits on Gnews, one of which I have added as a ref. Some previous content (which I have removed) was copied verbatim – with appropriate OTRS permission – from her website, and then translated here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Worldcat lists two albums released by Naxos, a well-known classical label, and an additional two released by ARS Produktion. The two released by Naxos are enough to pass WP:NBAND. As well, the international touring, if verified, would be an independent basis for passing WP:NBAND. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Eastmain: as far as I can tell, these are offered by Naxos Digital Services, which is a streaming service; the 2 CDs are not actually released by Naxos themselves, Naxos offers music from many publishers on their Digital Services. Looking at the track list, these are simply the two ARS CDs offered digitally, nothing more or less. Fram (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Eastmain: I always botch my pings... Fram (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kim-Wüst's New York concert CD was originally released by Sony (According to subjects homepage), but it's not available anymore. Grimes2 (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...and is completely unverifiable, not a trace of it seems to exist? So hardly a relevant element for an AfD. Fram (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but the Concert in New York happened. There are sources. This makes her notable for me. Grimes2 (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added some sources, seems to me notable. Grimes2 (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced by the sourcing or achievements, just a few small regional concerts (and not many even of them). Another one that at least mentions the Leschetizky award, but I'd be surprised if they actually verified it. —Kusma (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But anyway, this is sort of what the competition was like back then, if I understand it correctly. It is for younger students now. Anyway, here is a primary source proof that the concert took place. It isn't enough to establish notability if you ask me, but it can be verified. —Kusma (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I started taking a look through the article; but as you can see once the really routine stuff is removed what is left is basically this, which looks like probably a self-submitted biography as part of, you've guessed it, programme notes for a concert (K26 on that list). So Delete as failing GNG. In addition, the keeps are unconvincing, as unsupported assertions of notability and the (non-passing) of a (non-relevant) SNG (which does not override GNG anyway) aren't good arguments to the lack of coverage (which creates a WP:V issue). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. - I think the two recordings for ARS are worth something, I agree with Fram regarding the Naxos offerings. I tried all the avenues I could think of, and found no sources not already in the article. Institut für bildnerisches Denken is a staff profile page. "Chopin als Musiker und Mensch" is a press release. Chopin-Gesellschaft is exactly the same as the previous. Schumann-Portal is a quote from a review of one of the ARS CDs, which *may* indicate that that a larger review of the topic's performance style exists. Hence the "weak" delete. It wouldn't take much more to push this into notability territory, but I don't think it's quite there yet. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC) PS I could find no trace of the supposed Sony release. A catalog # would be sufficient for wp:v. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Her two CDs (produced by her husband): Sony CC971101 (Kammermusiksaal, Beethoven-Haus Bonn) and Sony CC991203 (Carnegie Weill Hall, New York), but no traces in Internet except subjects Homepage Grimes2 (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. No matter how I parse it, I can't confirm these actually exist, with or without the topic's participation. Nor do those catalog number fit within any of Sony's catalog numbering schemes. I'm becoming a bit more dubious, but I truly want to extend my appreciation for the effort you've put into this. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be self produced. It's not Sony Records, it's Sony DADC Sony Digital Audio Disc Corporation. Grimes2 (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. Well done! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:39, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ihor Magurin[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBOX. My before search in English and Ukrainian only found routine match results and fight announcements. ².O.^Boxing 13:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 13:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 13:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 13:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NBOX since his titles are from minor organizations. I also saw no coverage that appears to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:23, 12 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vahram Vardanyan[edit]

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

Prod was removed with no explanation. Appears to fail GNG and NBOX. My before search in English and Latvian found a few passing mentions of a cancelled fight and I couldn't find anything in Armenian. ².O.^Boxing 12:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 12:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 12:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 12:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 12:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails to meet any notability criteria of WP:NBOX. My search,, admittedly in English, found no significant independent coverage--only routine sports reporting and social media. Papaursa (talk) 21:17, 12 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 delete. G5 ~TNT (she/they • talk) 15:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC) ~TNT (she/they • talk) 15:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nagesh Kariyappa[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, not holding an office that would be an automatic pass of WP:NPOLITICIAN. References do not demonstrate pass of WP:GNG with just trivial mentions and routine coverage. nearlyevil 665 12:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 12:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 12:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nearlyevil665 sir Nagesh Kariyappa is a well notable figure i think you had not read the whole articles. Please read it fully and take any decision. Please check Nsui official website for reference also JamesAlfa (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nearlyevil665 sir, this passed WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. This was before deleted because it was created by a blocked or banned user. JamesAlfa (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Various positions at National Students' Union of India (NSUI) do not make him notable as a politician. David notMD (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete He is Notable just google about him. He is on National position of National Students' Union of India not on any local level. He was handpicked by Rahul Gandhi to this position, Nagesh Kariyappa has done many social activities for that he became notable JamesAlfa (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NPOL as per above, and given that Google pretty much turns up only run-of-the-mill, non-significant coverage of Kariyappa and his publicity stunts, he also fails WP:BIO. Creator is probably a sock, so this might also be a G5 candidate. Java Hurricane 15:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry JavaHurricane, sorry for creating but i'm not a sock. I just created because i got that he is notable. JamesAlfa (talk) 15:22, 8 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 13:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zhongxin District[edit]

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

It seems that no reliable source could prove that there is such a district with administrative nature exist in Zhongshan, Guangdong, China. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. DreamerBlue (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. DreamerBlue (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to Zhongshan. This article was mass-produced by a blocked user who made thousands of substub articles on geographic places on which he had no expertise, typically using passing mentions or tables with little context as sources, many of which I had deleted for not being real jurisdictions or redirected for lack of independent notability. Even if this exists (it is listed in Zhongshan#Administration) it's not clear it should be a separate article as a city subdivision. Reywas92^Talk 16:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a region of the city, not an actual district. Gorden 2211 (talk) 00:25, 10 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 13:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dongbei District[edit]

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

It seems that no reliable source could prove that there is such a district with administrative nature exist in Zhongshan, Guangdong, China. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. DreamerBlue (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. DreamerBlue (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to Zhongshan. This article was mass-produced by a blocked user who made thousands of substub articles on geographic places on which he had no expertise, typically using passing mentions or tables with little context as sources, many of which I had deleted for not being real jurisdictions or redirected for lack of independent notability. Even if this exists (it is listed in Zhongshan#Administration) it's not clear it should be a separate article as a city subdivision. Reywas92^Talk 16:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a real administrative division. Zhongshan city is not split into 5 districts and then subdistricts. The infobox even has a note: * Not a formal administrative subdivision Gorden 2211 (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not a populated legally recognized place, so it fails WP:GEOLAND, and while the lack of legal recognition is not a reason to exclude, the fact that it also fails GNG is. BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 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) 10:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of people and films from Classical Hollywood cinema[edit]

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

This list is far too broad, consisting of a random "selected" collection of actors, directors, films, etc. There are a ton of people and films from the Golden Age (which, according to Classical Hollywood cinema, goes back much further than I thought, all the way back to the silent era), far more than can be accommodated in a single manageable list. Larry Keating, for example, is an okay actor, but why the heck is he here and not somebody (or a thousand somebodies) better known. This even illogically includes international films not made in Hollywood. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this was created after a Talk page discussion at Classical Hollywood cinema. Pinging Ched and No Great Shaker, who were involved there, to give them a chance to comment. Neiltonks (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for the ping, Neil, and as you say the list was removed from Classical Hollywood cinema where it was burdensome and inappropriate. It is certainly better to have it as a standalone list if it is to be retained. The key question, I think, is: "Is it useful?" No Great Shaker (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/TNT Too long of a context-free list to be useful. Attempting to include everyone/everything in the industry over several decades is indiscriminate and failing to highlight the most important entries and their representativeness of the era does no service to the reader. The main article and related period-specific pages like 1940s in film, 1949 in film, etc. are better, which should use prose and tables to convey key information rather than an overly broad list. Reywas92^Talk 16:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have any strong feelings about this outside of the fact that it didn't belong in the article. It's true that I did take the time to create the list by moving the info from the article since I do have some empathy for those who try to contribute; so on one hand would say "weak keep". But ... frankly there are very few "lists" that I find useful on wiki, so on that other hand, I'd likely feel weak delete. At the end of the day I really don't care much how this XfD turns out. I do appreciate the notification and the pings however, so on that "third hand" I offer a thank you. — Ched (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HTRIVIA. Other than for trivia game answers, I see no reason for this to exist. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is not useful even for the purpose of navigation and would be better split into two categories. Also falls into problems with WP:LISTN and WP:NPOV due to the use of "important figures in the era" and "selected notable films". Although this is probably WP:FIXABLE, the heavy reliance on one (not exactly reliable) source is not a good look either. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else above, though this will inevitably get brigaded by the indiscriminate list rescue squad. Or maybe it’s too terrible even for them, I don’t know. Dronebogus (talk) 10:17, 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus Fighting Promotion[edit]

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

The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, King! This promotion is new, being the development territory of the largest Romanian kickboxing promotion Colosseum Tournament. It enters the FightBox (TV channel), which is live in over 60 countries. Same comparison with WWE and NXT (WWE brand) (farm, feeding promotion). It still belongs to the largest kickboxing company of Romania, and one of the largest in Europe. And the most active in the pandemic according to sources. I usually try to improve the kickboxing history and its database on the Wikipedia. Prometheus will put more events. It also mixes youngsters, mostly national champions at least with Colosseum stars. .karellian-24 (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also if it helps, it's on Digi Sport (Romania) as well - which is the largest sports TV channel in Romania, part of the Digi Communications (the largest South-East European television platform according to some sources). .karellian-24 (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karellian-24, NCORP requires references that meet NCORP criteria. I understand you claim that its new and on the television but we need references that meet our criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am trying. If it doesn't pass I will integrate it to Colosseum Tournament, because basically it's their farm territory. Fight Box, Kickboxing Z and Tapology (the new Sherdog for all martial arts results). .karellian-24 (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-07 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the nominator. Not enough news. Webmaster862 (talk) 08:29, 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 redirect to List of It's Showtime segments. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ReIna ng Tahanan[edit]

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

No secondary sources. No evidence of GNG. The article is also wholly fancruft, with no Production or Reception sections. Entire TV series are not considered inherently notable, and segments of shows are very rarely so. A BEFORE shows some ABS-CBN News and other sources, not rising to the very high amount of coverage we'd need to see for a segment to be notable. Even if notable, this should be at It's Showtime (Philippine TV program) first (it's currently only mentioned in passing) and then split only if necessary. The creator edit warred over my draftification, rather than improving and submitting through AFC, so here we are. — Bilorv (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and summarise to It's Showtime (Philippine TV program) List of It's Showtime segments. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of It's Showtime segments. clipred (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of It's Showtime segments. Fails WP:GNG with insufficient sources and a possible WP:CRUFT. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of It's Showtime segments. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:50, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compare download[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB and WP:NCORP. All the sources seem to be regular PR releases or promotional articles. The only reliable source I could find was a Reuters article that had a passing mention of the company. AryKun (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk •

contributions) 15:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't exist anymore, no third-part coverage.-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:02, 8 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 10:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Devlin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted in 2013. Credited as gaffer in several films, which is not inherently notable. Does not appear to have significant coverage. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All that a BEFORE search turns up is his website, IMDb, and his instagram. Does not pass criteria for WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, WP:BASIC nor WP:ANYBIO. Not much has changed from the last deletion, still not notable per WP guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:00, 10 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 10:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mic Dicta[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Couldn’t find one source that was directly about this podcast. KidAd • SPEAK 08:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Strong sourcing is somewhat difficult to come by, but enough non-primary references exist (e.g., [4], [5], [6]) to justify a keep. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 23:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those sources are incredibly weak. I highly doubt that "xfdrmag.net" is a reliable source. It is, at best, a very indie digital publication that ceased publication in 2018. And the Bloomberglaw piece only mentions the podcast once. KidAd • SPEAK 04:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:GNG. TheWrap source dedicates a single sentence to the podcast and the Bloomberg source is clearly a passing mention. The CrossFader source is okay, but it doesn't appear to be much more than a WP:BLOG run by Thomas Seraydarian, and in the little time that I was on the site I got a weird popup scam (I don't know if that was due to something else related to my computer or if it was the site, but I can't seem to recreate the problem). I also can't find any details about who Carter Moon is. I also did a WP:BEFORE and checked Newspapers.com and couldn't find additional sourcing. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; there are passing mentions in the sources that are compliant sources, but passing mentions are not sufficient to keep. Fails GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 01:59, 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. ✗plicit 10:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poochakkanni[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable director and cast. † Encyclopædius 12:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Encyclopædius: We don't establish notability by weather the director or cast are notable. We establish by sources. The sources that you provided are not considered reliable.--Filmomusico (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Encyclopædius -GorgonaJS (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The above two !keep votes should thus be disregarded. Curbon7 (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before making such comments you should read WP:NFOE: 2. The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career -GorgonaJS (talk) 23:23, 8 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) 06:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I don't believe WP:NFOE#2 is sufficient reason to ignore "notability is not inherited", both on general principle and the context in which that argument is presented, there have been additional sources added. Now, automated translation does not function very well on Malayalam, and some of the text is not directly parsable by computers, but I am going to WP:AGF that these sources contribute towards GNG and !vote to keep. BilledMammal (talk) 02:07, 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 redirect to Paul Krugman. ✗plicit 10:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sweatshop labor fallacy[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Niche term used by a single economist, with the only citation being that economists own work. BSMRD (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paul Krugman as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question is this at all related to Pauper labor fallacy which is also currently up for deletion? Or are these completely separate topics? Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both terms were coined by the same author and seemingly only used by them. BeŻet (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Paul Krugman: not notable at all, term misleads readers as it's not what one considers a "fallacy", it's not widely used - in fact, it seems it's only used by Krugman himself. BeŻet (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paul Krugman. He coined a term but no-one else has started to use it yet. Redirect and if it gains more traction at a later date it can then become an article. Neiltonks (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kurgman. Fails GNG, but is not an unreasonable search term for someone who is reading his works. BilledMammal (talk) 02:09, 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 no consensus. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of unidentified murder victims in Arizona[edit]

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

This article is a random very small sampling of unidentified murder victims in Arizona that probably aren't independently notable (with the exception of a few with stand alone articles). It's essentially listcruft. Even the namings of the cases by location are problematic because many of these counties have hundreds if not thousands of Jane and John Does in their cold case files. I'm not seeing how this indiscriminate list benefits the encyclopedia or meets the criteria at WP:NLIST. 4meter4 (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adendum. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasoning based on the outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unidentified murder victims in Pennsylvania. As it is a related AFD, I am pinging Clarityfiend, TH1980, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and Heartmusic678.4meter4 (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic case of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and probably issues with WP:LISTN and WP:V. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge entries with articles to List of unidentified murder victims in the United States and redirect, just like the recent verdict of the Afd for Pennsylvania. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Vladimir.copic. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge novel entries with articles to List of unidentified murder victims in the United States, but delete these pages. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you can not vote delete and merge. If merged - the history of the article should be kept. See WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Christian75 (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I could vote for a merge, but the target is 300 kb large and my browser is hanging when loading the page. Oppose removing entries without an article - we should have entries which have references, and removing the ones withour. Christian75 (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian75, the sources without entries are largely sourced to one source, The Doe Network, and the primary author of these entries on wikipedia has assigned arbitrary names not based in the sources to those subjects; basically drawing their own unique conclusions and creating what amounts to WP:Original Synthesis. There is a reason why we have policies like WP:No original research and the need to verify content with multiple reliable sources (see WP:Verifiability). Additionally, The Doe Network profiles are essentially copy pasted law enforcement case files with law enforcement case numbers as titles, and are therefore not independent but are considered primary sources. Therefore, these individual unidentifiable murder victims lack independent RS which makes them unsuitable for use within wikipedia per WP:PRIMARY.4meter4 (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "List of unidentified murder victims in 'state name'" are splitted from List of unidentified murder victims in the United States. WP:Deletion is not cleanup and any entries with poor references could be removed without any afd and the "list of" articles could be merged into the main list article. Christian75 (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While that's true, the main issue raised here is indiscrimination and whether such a list is even encyclopedic; as it's such a small and random collection of articles within a very large population. That's a discussion topic that extends beyond the purview of a MERGE discussion which is why it was brought to AFD. Merge is of course a valid outcome at AFD and you are free to argue the solution you just gave; but this was not a clean-up nomination.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I see some merge proposals but that would just migrate the issues this proposer has with the smaller article to another, bigger article. I don't see this topic inherently as unencyclopedic. There's certainly a discriminate dimension to it and I don't think all of these are necessarily qualified to be here but arguably some cases are more noteworthy due to a larger abundance of information, attention and efforts given to the case, age, new information in recent years or various other reasons. This discussion hasn't attracted many people but I believe some input from crime project editors would be desirable for this disccusion and the direction of these types of pages. In any case, I'm opposed to Lompoc Jane Doe being expunged because her case has inspired a novel and experimental use of genetic genealogy on decedents which has become a norm now after having been used for different types of investigations. --Killuminator (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (vehemently). This information is an invaluable and concise source of information which is used as a reference and sourcing point on the web for sleuths (amateur and professional) to resolve these cases. Actually seems to fuel the passion to resolve the cases to a degree, and there is an impressive rate of solving them. This is not an obscure, ad-hoc "expand and remain" list. Personally, segmentizing the states with a particularly large number of noteworthy, "active" entries makes the List of unidentified murder victims in the United States easier to navigate (and may also prevent an almost inevitable future complaint that article is too elongated or exhaustive). I feel a sense of disbelief these articles have been flagged as such. They should not be merged. If you browse this topic enough on other websites (any state), these articles seem to have earned the public's trust and are like a combined nucleus for overall information on unsolved/unidentified cases.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Killuminator and Kieronoldham. I really don't think opposing a merge is helpful, as almost all of the entries in these lists lack secondary sources and are cited to one of three primary sources, The Doe Network website or NAMUS website or National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The Doe Network is basically a copy paste of NAMUS, and both NAMUS's and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's entries are primary sources. As such The Doe Network profiles are considered primary sources too which makes them unsuitable for use within wikipedia per WP:PRIMARY (unless they are being used in conjunction with secondary and tertiary sources which isn’t the case in much of this list).

Further, the use of these sources has not been done carefully with arbitrary location based names assigned to the murder victims not based in the cited primary sources which use law enforcement codes to label each unidentified body (largely because there are many unidentified bodies associated with most of these locations which is why they have coded names not place names). The location based naming and organization system used in the wikipedia lists are original to wikipedia and were compiled by drawing unique conclusions which amounts to WP:Original Synthesis. There is a reason why we have policies like WP:No original research and the need to verify content with multiple reliable independent sources (see WP:Verifiability).

All of this to say, how is this encyclopedic? NAMUS recovers over 4,000 unidentified bodies every year in the United States, out of which typically 25% remain unsolved. We are looking at thousands of unidentified murder victims in their database so I'm not really seeing how this tiny number of cases are encyclopedic. Further most of these cases aren't notable because they lack secondary and tertiary sources with in-depth coverage. Wikipedia's purpose and role is not to advocate or draw attention to unidentified murder victims and do the work of law enforcement agencies like NAMUS or assist amateur sleuths. It seems like these pages were created as a tool for advocacy which is outside of Wikipedia's purview (which is to be an encyclopedia). These lists are essentially WP:SYNTH of primary sources and their creation has WP:POV and WP:COI issues as described at Wikipedia:Advocacy.4meter4 (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your observation ("Wikipedia's purpose and role is not to advocate or draw attention to unidentified murder victims and do the work of law enforcement agencies like NAMUS or assist amateur sleuths"), but there is potential in Wiki as a referencing tool (even initially). If the likes of Google place Wiki. at the top of immediate search engine results for many a topic, perhaps it should be utilized as such if one is searching for topics as diverse as those Wiki. hosts.--Kieronoldham (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kieronoldham, I can appreciate your WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, but given that this content has both WP:VERIFIABILITY issues because it lacks independent secondary and tertiary sources, and its a WP:SYNTH of primary material, I don't see how we can justify this content as encyclopedic. Our policies at WP:SIGCOV require sources to be secondary, and the vast majority of these entries have no secondary sources validating its content. Nor are they likely to have secondary sources, because the vast majority of John and Jane Does found never get independent coverage.4meter4 (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For an inclusion that meets criteria for articlespace, there should be significant coverage of the primary topic, which should pertain to the collective amount of alleged victims. Coverage that only covers each in the media does not count. There is no indication of significant coverage of the subject. Multi7001 (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I agree with those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of unidentified murder victims in the United States for attribution purposes, at the very most. Edit history of merged content, of which there are several examples here such as these ones found from an edit summary search, should not be deleted for attribution purposes. I came here from this village pump discussion and have no opinion on the actual content, just the attribution. Graham87 10:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Graham87 I’m not sure if we actually will be merging content originally posted in the split out articles. Most if not all of the content that is non-problematic originated in the parent article before the split of articles by state were created. As such, attribution isn’t really an issue here.4meter4 (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @4meter4: The problem is not that content *might* be merged, but the fact that it already has and there are already edit summaries pointing to the state-based articles. Graham87 02:19, 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 draftify to Draft:Ben Shelton (tennis). Consensus is that WP:TOOSOON applies. It seems likely that this individual will probably become notable at some point in the future, but right now there isn't enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Shelton (tennis)[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Couldn't find many sources to meet independent coverage guidelines and has had no major success in the professional circuit of men's tennis. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. I think he passes WP:GNG now. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a single GNG source in the article; which refs are you talking about? JoelleJay (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: References added satisfy NSPORT. Had to withdraw from US Open a/c contracting Covid. So keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above and further subject is 18 years and has an ongoing career withdraw from US open due to Covid.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is sourced to databases and non-independent media, with the exception of trivial mentions in LWOS and a local radio writeup on his dad. NSPORT requires GNG be met, and he emphatically does not. JoelleJay (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see a couple of comments here mentioning he withdrew from the US Open due to Covid. I’m not quite sure what that has to do with him establishing notability but I don’t think that that event alone establishes it. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. While its true that he would have become notable if he had played in the US Open, that unfortunately didn't actually happen. We can't base notability around what could of or should of occurred but what in reality has occurred. As such, there's not really a good keep argument based in WP:NTENNIS. I agree with JoelleJay that the sources aren't significant or independent enough to meet the criteria at WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG. That said, it's possible he may meet NTENNIS in the future and draftify might be a good solution. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON or Delete. A lot of recent press, which might lead people to come looking here (which is a good thing), but (as mentioned), no real reason within WP:NTENNIS. And not enough of an article to even get the ball rolling... Though WP:DRAFT should only be for six months or less...nothing to update until the Australian in Jan/Feb 2022...so... I'm sure he will have an article someday. Mjquinn_id (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. To delete would also be too soon, given what teenage tennis players can achieve. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. They currently fail WP:GNG, but at the risk of invoking WP:CRYSTALBALL I think there is a reasonable chance that they will meet the criteria in the future. Further, there is some good content in the article that it would be a waste to delete should they become notable. As such, Drafting is the appropriate decision. BilledMammal (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - withdrawing from an event due to COVID is not a significant enough event to guarantee an article on its own. There is a reasonably high chance of future notability so sending to draft is a good option as per those above. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 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 delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almana Shchora[edit]

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

While this band's career was lengthy, it hasn't really taken off, and I can't see any criterion of WP:NBAND being met. Geschichte (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Among others, were featured on Israel's main tv channel.[7] gidonb (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was unable to locate any sources of significance, although I think any coverage of the band is likely to be in Hebrew, offline, and/or in a newspaper archive behind a paywall. However, given that their albums have not been financially successful snd were not recorded with a significant label a claim to notability is pretty thin. My only hesitation here is the Ozfest performance. I did find that they performed on the Second Stage and not the Main Stage and it was only the Israel portion of the 2010 world tour, so it's not that significant of an achievement. The article's claim of performing alongside Ozzy Osbourne, Korn, etc. is a stretch as they weren't performing in the same venue at the festival. 4meter4 (talk) 03:28, 8 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. consensus is the topic meets GNG, if barely. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Osfest[edit]

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

PRODded on the grounds that "A BEFORE provides no evidence of notability for this short run music festival" and PROD declined in part: "Needs a cleanup, but with sources including the BBC, WalesOnline, and NME, I feel this is notable"

The sources, which I also found, do not establish notability. The WalesOnline piece is the best, but it really wasn't in depth coverage of the festival. BBC was announcing its postponement and NME was significantly more about the a particular band participating. Others that I found simply discussed that it was happening, and some event listings. There is nothing to indicate WP:ORG (as I assume NMUSIC doesn't quite apply) or that this festival had much of an impact and therefore notice. Star Mississippi 19:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I feel the WalesOnline source meets the requirements set out by GNG, as in, it is independent, verifiable, and significant coverage. The BBC source is short, though I feel it goes above routine coverage as it contains additional info, it is not only about the postponement. The BBC is also a national broadcaster, which I feel improves the case for notability. Agreed that the NME article is more about Razorlight than the festival itself, but this helps show that major bands did play at this event. There are additional sources available, I feel there is enough coverage available to meet GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough coverage for GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage from reliable sources is adequate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:45, 8 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.