Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 15

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This has significant underlying UNDUE problems in addition to the concerns expressed below. Daniel (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hand

Peter Hand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I don't know much about Australian radiojournalism, but I couldn't find a great deal about him and the one provided source for this BLP says that he was fired for uttering a racial slur on the air. This doesn't seem like enough to establish notability and a BLP requires much better references than what's provided. ♟♙ (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Weak References, article has ben tagged for years because of a lack of sources. Tec Tom (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: I agree with the OP's criticisms so I've made significant changes to the page in an attempt to meet WP:GNG, although it's still a weak page. I could only find a couple of sources online, both relating to the successful unfair dismissal claim; and a handful via a ProQuest database search of Australian and New Zealand newspapers (deeper and broader than Google) although most are from a regional newspaper, the Illawarra Mercury. The page now arguably passes WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving the article and for adding some references, Cabrils! Still, I am not quite sure, if the page now passes WP:GNG, but would also agree on a weak keep.Tec Tom (talk)

• Delete based on current content. This article is only two sentences long and says nothing about who the subject has worked for nor when. Hardly anything is stated about his career except for a time when he was suspended and a time when he was fired. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netrikann

Netrikann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM and WP:NFF.

PROD removed with "multiple secondary independent sources discuss this film", but the sources cited are a link to a trailer, an article announcing the film and saying it "might" be a remake (but its more of a promotional article), and the third one just talks about it going to streaming platform.

Nothing else was found, no reviews, etc.

Since it's not released yet, it might be best to move it to DRAFT until release and see if any reviews appear at that point. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The film is greatly looked forward as the Lady superstar of Tamil Industry Nayanthara comes in a lead role. She has a huge fan following and so her films. The film is the remake of the super hit Korean film, Blind. Kross Pictures, an international film production company, which take initiative in bringing Korean films to India is the co-producer of the film. The film is going to be released through the OTT Platform, Disney+Hotstar very recently. So I give a strong keep for this film. But I do agree to the point that the article didn't have enough citations. Hence I am making many changes - adding references and more content to the article and hence voting a Strong Keep for the film.
  • Reference which is a link to the trailer has been removed and the References which talks about producer and co-producer of the movie have been kept.
  • The Reference which says that the film might be a remake is replaced by the Reference which ensures that its a remake of the Korean movie Blind.
  • Added reference about the cast of the film.
  • Added reference about the music which was released and which attained great attention from the people.
  • Added more references about the shooting and production.
  • Added references about the teaser and poster release of the film.
  • Just a Google search itself says about how notable the film is... Sonal Mathew (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, WP:HEY. Significantly different article now than when it was taken to AfD, including a number of new references from Times of India and other reliable sources. /Julle (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hansa - Ek Sanyog

Hansa - Ek Sanyog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM.

PROD removed with "see Times of India and Zee news sources when I search. they are independent from the people making the film so not promotional articles." While the Times article may qualify as a step toward notability, the Zee article is simply a casting announcement, which does not count toward notability requirements.

I found nothing else in my search. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23:I've removed the article about casting announcement. I've added a source for the content I recently added. I've also linked a few Wikipedia articles to this article. .Eevee01 (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not qualifying WP:NFILM. It is WP:TOOSOON. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the creator of this article. After reading the comments, I agree that the movie is not notable enough. Eevee01 (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Soldiers

American Soldiers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment review found at [[1]]CineMagazine, which I have seen used as a RS in many AfDs. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, with the above review I also found reviews at DVD Talk (archived link) and Eye for Film (which I have seen used as a RS). Should satisfy NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, now has 2 reviews which passes WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reviews demonstrating the bare minimum of notability. The film is also known as Combat Zone, so there might be additional sources using that title. TompaDompa (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it has full reviews in reliable film sources such as DVD Talk and Cinemagazine so WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha and Rahul

Aisha and Rahul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a film, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for films. The strongest notability claim here is that it won awards at minor film festivals which aren't notability clinchers, whereas NFILM is looking for major film festivals on the Cannes-Berlin-Toronto-Sundance tier of prominence rather than just any small-fry film festival that exists — and the article is referenced entirely to directory entries on IMDb, IMDb clones, Amazon and public libraries, and is not showing any evidence whatsoever of reliable source coverage about the film in real media. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to have considerably better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So many sources, yet non make the film notable.--Filmomusico (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baurzhan Baimukhanov

Baurzhan Baimukhanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There's nothing to indicate notability. There's no RS coverage on which to build an encyclopedic entry. This WP page is just a glorified LinkedIn profile. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I can find no significant coverage that would enable the subject of this article to pass the GNG/WP:BASIC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Tagged since 2015 and sourced from virtually nothing. The article's creator's only edits have been to this page, which hints at a COI.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close with no action. No consensus here has established a merge with 7 days elapsed, and User:Dr. Universe is correct that this should have been proposed at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers rather than AfD. Daniel (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian doubles

Canadian doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Merge into Types of tennis match due to WP:Short and WP:DUP; Stub for over a decade; not much room for increased content. Mjquinn_id (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Mjquinn id: next time please propose this at WP:PAM rather than at articles for deletion. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7/G11 Speedy deleted by Bbb23 (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 00:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richie knows

Richie knows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable software application that fails to meet relevant SNG, the article is predominantly a promotional one promoting a non notable software application and a non notable individual. No in-depth significant coverage in RS could be observed. Borderline G11 eligible. Celestina007 (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged as speedy delete. Pre-alpha social network with no sources or indication of importance.Citing (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armagh Integrated College

Armagh Integrated College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No sources exist, except for one which mentions that this school used to exist, but nothing else. No notability. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect: is the quick solution. I have left an anchor point at Integrated College Dungannon#Armagh Integrated College that could receive it. ClemRutter (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: Sources(which apparently don't exist): [2] [3] [4] The Irish Examiner source counts as significant coverage. The Irish Times source is borderline significant coverage in my opinion. these sources were easily found with a quick google search (which the nominator could easily have done per WP:BEFORE) more may be found with a better search. 194.125.95.113 (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this which I think counts as significant coverage 194.125.95.113 (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also this 194.125.95.113 (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or Merge To the target identified by ClemRutter. The Irish times is a long article, but mostly about other stuff. Same goes for the Irish examiner article. It's on a former cabinet members views about integrated education in general. Not about Armagh Integrated College. Which it only name drops. The rest of the references don't seem to be in-depth coverage either. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which Examiner article you read (I linked two) this one is entirely about the closure of this school. this one has several hundred words about this school in particular. It's also worth pointing out that Mo Mowlam's comments were made at the opening of this school. 194.125.95.113 (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is it relevant when or where Mo Mowlam made the comments? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I changed my vote to redirect or merge since I missed the second Examiner article. I still think one of those is the best option. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG, as with pretty much any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It'll never be a huge article, but there are enough sources to establish notability per WP:ORGDEPTH: these are more than mere trivial listings. I don't see a redirect as suggested as an improvement.OsFish (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per OsFish, having glanced at the sources. Enough for us to be able to build an article. /Julle (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗plicit 13:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alimero

Alimero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not a notable website; fails WP:GNG GloriaJFM (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SL2College

SL2College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG; advertisement GloriaJFM (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as I am not seeing anything that suggests any notability at all. What I do see is an article written just like what their website could be written like, or any other promotional material. I am surprised it was created over a decade ago. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can’t find any RIS at all. Mccapra (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this probably could have been dealt with as a PROD. It clearly is clearly promoting/advertising the organization - there is no supporting/meaningful coverage in any independent secondary sources and it is questionable as whether the organization exists anymore. Dan arndt (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Administrator note: Nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. ✗plicit 13:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Due to the lack of notability. I'm tempted to go with procedural keep, but there's already enough "votes" in one direction to warrant seeing the AfD through. Otherwise, it would likely just be kept to needlessly be sent through the process again with the same outcome. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I strongly believe it should be deleted because reliable sources are week and this article written just for advertisement purpose. Fails GNG.TheDreamBoat (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shane Dawson#Filmography. (ATD) Daniel (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shane and Friends

Shane and Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:WEB, mostly trivial mentions, insignificant coverage by tabloid media. I could not find one reliable source covering the subject in-depth. I do not believe it warrants its own article, though some of its contents could be incorporated into the Shane Dawson article. Throast (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Shane Dawson#Filmography: Barely found anything about the podcast. Search results return only passing mentions. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flashline Games

Flashline Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable; fails WP:GNG GloriaJFM (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 19:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find any sources for this. Fails GNG. Fails NCORP. None of the games produced are notable, so I imagine this fails any novel interpretation of a creative endeavor. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note: Nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. ✗plicit 13:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nom's misbehavior notwithstanding, the subject does fail WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moch. As'ari

Moch. As'ari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Despite playing in 3 fixtures, his total game time was 59 minutes, less than one game of football in terms of playing time. This, in my view, is a fairly weak passing of WP:NFOOTBALL and there is clear consensus among the Wikipedia community that all sportspeople are required to satisfy WP:GNG.

I attempted many searches, including an Indonesian source search, and including variations in the spelling of his name, but was unable to find any in-depth coverage addressing him directly and in detail. Nothing that we can build a meaningful and substantial biography from. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If he passes WP:NFOOTBALL, the article should be kept. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lacks the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. No sources that go towards GNG are found in the article and I could not locate any during an online search (including in Indonesian sources). As Spiderone notes, all sportspeople have to pass WP:GNG regardless of whether they pass WP:NFOOTBALL or other sports-specific notability guidelines per WP:ATHLETE. - Alvaldi (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GS, doesn't look to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above arguments, players meeting WP:NFOOTBALL can still be obscure. Geschichte (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep still passes NFOOTY, and appears to still have an active career.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC) Delete per below.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last record of him anywhere was sitting on the bench in June 2012, 9 years ago Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗plicit 13:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trance.nu

Trance.nu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not a notable website; fails WP:GNG, the article is mostly just text copied from the former webpage GloriaJFM (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hashem Farajzadeh

Hashem Farajzadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Coverage is weak and does not meet WP:GNG requirements. Google News and DDG searches in his native language failed to yield anything better than a transfer announcement and a small bunch of squad list mentions. Barely anything better than Isna was located. Several articles where he is mentioned only once do not add up to a passing of GNG. Futsal players are not covered by WP:NFOOTBALL either, even if they claim to be professionals. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masoud Ayazipour

Masoud Ayazipour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

None of the references establish anything towards WP:GNG and I found nothing better in his native language on DDG or Google News. The best sources appear to be Tasnim News and Irna, both of which mention him only once. Also worth noting that futsal players are not given any presumption of notability under WP:NFOOTBALL. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Al Haraki

Nadine Al Haraki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

BLP of a refugee activist of uncertain notability. A search for sources in English and Arabic didn’t turn up anything not already in the article, and I’m not sure there’s enough here to warrant a stand alone bio. Mccapra (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete the best source I could find here was this short 1-page description and quote of her, which is not enough for WP:GNG. --hroest 15:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, insufficient coverage for notability.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Hog Farm _Talk 17:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turning points during World War II

Turning points during World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An orphan article that is essentially OR. There are any number of events that could be called a turning point in WW2, and the selection is completely subjective even if referred to in sources. It seems like an answer in search of a question, and category made longwinded Pipsally (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking at it properly, I concur that it could be considered subjective in relation to the events listed as being referred to as "turning points". The article's references support the prose within the sections and the events themselves, but do not necessarily validate their inclusion in the article or why they are considered "turning points" and by who. I am interested in what the original author Loafiewa has to say before considering whether to !vote on this. I am leaning delete as it's essentially just a list under the guise of something else. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As you've mentioned, the #1 issue is that the references don't actually support the claims that the battles mentioned were considered turning points. Would it be worth trying to find references to support these claims, or is the article's nature inherently OR? Loafiewa (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Loafiewa: The fact you need to ask whether it's appropriate to reference the underlying purpose of the article gives me pause for thought and confirmation that it really is nothing more than opinion, or textbook original research. Pipsally pretty much hit the nail on the head in the nomination, "It seems like an answer in search of a question". If you think you can find sufficient reliable sources to support the foundation of the article before the AfD concludes then sure, go for it. Doing so successfully may alter the course of the AfD, if perhaps very unorthodox, but doesn't change that it was seemingly founded wholly on personal opinion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on the basis of my view above and the admission by Loafiewa that this is opinion driven. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would think that to qualify as a turning point would at a minimum require a reference or two supporting the inclusion of a particular battle, and the rationale for it. Clearly it is completely subjective. The "academic answers" down the bottom are a concession of OR; such an article should be based upon them in the first instance, not the author's opinions. I'm inclining towards delete on the unusual basis that the article could never be brought up to an acceptable standard. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a clear case of WP:OR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too subjective, too much OR. Mztourist (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Too subjective. The outcome of the war might have been very different if Hitler had maintained peace with Stalin. Objectively his decision to invade USSR (Operation Barbarosa) is thus a key event but not listed. Equally this applies to the Attack on Pearl Harbor which brought USA into war. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too subjective. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not specific enough to meet WP criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as is original research. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 12:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being subjective is not necessarily a problem as long as there is some kind of WP:Academic consensus about what qualifies. This is however not the case here, as the article itself notes. The source cited for the views of historians—https://www.historynet.com/what-was-the-turning-point-of-world-war-ii.htm—makes this abundantly clear. If anything, the prevailing view seems to be that the concept of a turning point does not apply to WWII (or as the nominator put it, It seems like an answer in search of a question). It might theoretically be possible to write an article about the lack of a distinctive turning point in WWII as compared to other wars, but that would require way better sourcing and would at any rate constitute a rather significant scope change—it wouldn't be a different version of this article but rather an altogether different article. As it stands, this is essentially a list with no proper WP:LISTCRITERIA. TompaDompa (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Devel Motors. No sourced content to merge. czar 04:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devel Sixteen

Devel Sixteen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Devel Sixteen

This stub does not contain enough information to establish product notability.

There is also a draft, which is more detailed, and reads like an advertisement, so this article cannot be moved to draft space.

Both of the references are advertisements.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An article is not required to "contain enough information to establish product notability". The topic is required to be notable. Notability is determined without regard to whether it's already been made clear from the text or sources in the article. See WP:ARTN. Largoplazo (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment I'll leave it to others to judge the reliability and sufficiency of the following coverage, but I'm pretty sure the suitability of Road and Track and Robb Report, if not that of Motor Authority or Jalopnik, is clear.

• https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a13787331/devel-sixteen-preview-photos-info-dubai-motor-show/
• https://robbreport.com/motors/cars/slideshow/cutting-edge-cars-from-the-2017-dubai-international-motor-show/devel-sixteen/

• https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121646_devel-sixteen-will-reportedly-arrive-in-production-spec-in-2019

• https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1124942_devel-wants-to-remind-everyone-the-sixteen-is-still-supposedly-coming
• https://jalopnik.com/the-devel-sixteens-insane-3-000-hp-v16-engine-seems-to-1746848131

• https://www.motor1.com/news/274342/see-devel-sixteen-desert-dubai/
• https://www.thedrive.com/news/20253/acceleration-test-video-shows-the-insane-5000-horsepower-devel-sixteen-is-real
• https://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/remember-the-mythical-5000-horsepower-devel-sixteen-well-supercar-blondie-just-drove-it-ar183308.html

Largoplazo (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Devel Motors - Sources demonstrate notability, but do not demonstrate independent notability. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I do not believe that the car or the company meet the threshold for significant coverage, but if they must be kept they should be merged.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McLeod Country Golf Club

McLeod Country Golf Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Run of the mill golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Although I have not been much of a contributor to this article (just a few small edits), I am familiar with the topic as it is in my local area. The significance of this golf club is that it was the first golf club in Australia to give women equal rights and was specifically established by women for that reason. At that time, women could not have full membership of other golf clubs, merely "ladies membership" which generally restrict their rights (could not play on weekends, could not vote, etc). See [5], [6], [7], [8]. However, it would appear that mention of this was removed from the lede paragraph in 2020 by an IP (see this version prior to that edit. I have previously seen IP edits on articles related to Australian women in which bit by bit their achievements are removed or deprecated so this may be the same individual at work. I think the topic is notable (although I would agree that the article wasn't tremendously well-written, but this is not the point at issue in an AfD). Kerry (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:GNG per the sources Kerry Raymond has provided and shows it is not a run-of-the-mill golf course. The complaints department being on the roof is also not a reason for deletion and is non-sensical. Deus et lex (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is part of WilliamJE's signature, and is not part of the nomination statement, FWIW. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Agree with Kerry's reasons. I've made some copy edits to clean it up a little. There's sufficient sources to pass WP: GNG]. Cabrils (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Relisted in error, sorry. I meant to close as "keep" because the "keep" arguments have remained unrefuted. But now my closing script borks out because of a supposed edit conflicht, so I'll leave this for another closer. Sandstein 17:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kilbrogan House

Kilbrogan House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NBUILDING, WP:GNG and related criteria.

In terms of NBUILDING, this early 19th century building is like many others in Bandon and County Cork. And while several other buildings in this part of Bandon are listed on the Record of Protected Structures for County Cork (and are therefore may meet NBUILDING as 'officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level'), this building is not listed on the Record of Protected Structures. And therefore has no regional or national heritage/protection status. It is no more notable than any other (of hundreds or thousands or 10s of thousands) Georgian buildings in Ireland. And no more notability that the 40-50,000 other structures with an entry in the NIAH buildingsofireland.ie database. (While, in the dePROD and other similar AfD discussions, I have seen an argument that the NIAH is a record of protected or heritage structures. It isn't. The NIAH is a "long list" of structures that may be considered for protected status. As such it includes pretty much anything and everything that might qualify. And therefore contains structures that have been assessed for inclusion in the RPS, but were not afforded protected status. Or which have yet to be reviewed/protected. And as such is part waiting room, part reject list.)

In terms of GNG, I cannot find sources to establish notability. And can barely find sources, in fact, to support much of the text. A search in news sources (like an Irish Times search or a Google News search) returns nothing. At all. Book sources (like a Google Books search) only seem to include directory-style entries and the like for the B&B business. Academic sources (like JSTOR) and architectural sources (like the otherwise extensive Irish Architectural Archive/DIA) also return nothing.

In general terms, the stuff about the "present owner [having] opened the formerly private residence for guest accommodation including bed and breakfast and self-catering" (with multiple web links to accommodation websites) hasn't helped with PROMO/ADVERT/COI concerns. I'm really just not seeing how this B&B/building is any more notable than any other. Even in Bandon frankly. Not to mind the rest of the county. Or country. Or beyond. Guliolopez (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NBUILDING as demo'ed by very thorough nomination. Spleodrach (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no more notable than hundreds of other building in Ireland. There is nothing special here. The only source seem to be mentions in travel guides; online and printed. ww2censor (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While inclusion on the NIAH may not actually meet the criteria of WP:GEOFEAT, I think it's a highly contributory factor, since anything included on the NIAH at Regional level or above is recommended by the minister for listing on the RPS. Despite the nominator's statement, I would say that most Georgian houses (large ones, at least) are in fact notable. The fact there are thousands of them is utterly irrelevant. In fact, if it was in the UK, where there are even more, this would almost certainly be a listed building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Hiya. Thanks for the considered contributions. While I am always conscious of WP:BLUDGEON in these discussions, I thought it useful to note that:

• While a listing in the NIAH may be contributory, it cannot stand as a notability consideration on its own. Otherwise this 1970s phone box or 1990s post box would meet GEOFEAT. And I'm sure we'd all agree they wouldn't. Not unless either were the primary topic of other SIGCOV.
• While it might be your opinion/contention that "most [big] Georgian houses" are automatically notable, I'm not sure which notability criteria would provide for every [big] building (built over a span of ~120 years) being automatically notable.
• While it is an interesting hypothetical ("if this house was in the UK it'd be protected"), and a possibly valid critique of Ireland's planning/protection regime, I'm not sure how that hypothetical applies here. Bandon is not in the UK :)
• Otherwise, while the difference between "included on a list of buildings considered for heritage protection" and "included on a list of buildings conferred with heritage protection" is an interesting discussion to have, I don't see how it can be balanced against a simple WP:SIGCOV review. (In that, absent the NIAH entry and this Wikipedia article, I can find nothing which discusses the subject in any depth at all. To the extent that even the basic facts of the article ["greenhouse and conservatory may have been built c.1900", "auction took place there c.1900", etc] seem to be unsupported/unsupportable.)

Anyway, always happy to participate in a considered AfD discussion, but I can't personally agree with arguments like "considered for protection status is (effectively) equivalent to having protection status" or "all (big-ish) buildings built in the latter 18th and early 19th centuries have a form of inherent notability". Guliolopez (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that my opinion that most large Georgian houses were notable merely followed on the heels of your opinion that they were not! As to my contention that such houses probably would be listed in the UK, I think it is important to point out the fact that an identical house would probably meet WP:GEOFEAT if it was in a neighbouring country with a very similar architectural tradition. It makes little sense in real world terms (as opposed to the rarefied and apparently increasingly "rules-bound" world of Wikipedia) that one passes notability requirements and another does not simply because their respective countries have different standards for heritage protection. Incidentally, according to the NIAH website, they're recommended for heritage protection (presumably by experts) rather than simply considered for; rather different things, I think. I would incidentally agree with you that individual postboxes and telephone boxes are not worthy of inclusion, any more than the hundreds of 1920s and 1930s telephone boxes which have actually been accorded listed building status in the UK are, although technically they do pass GEOFEAT. They're notable as types of structure rather than as individual structures. Sometimes we have to use common sense! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'll just confirm one thing here. And then we can move to User Talk as needed. In short, it would not be true to say that "[all NIAH listings are] recommended for heritage protection". Per the NIAH website, "NIAH surveys provide the basis for the recommendations of the Minister". Just because something was surveyed and recorded doesn't mean that it leads to a recommendation. Only once a building is included on the NIAH's recommendation for the conservation list, is that list passed on to the relevant county council. And the council then vote on what makes it onto the RPS. For example, this 1970s crane was surveyed. But the survey did not result in a recommendation. (The NIAH is not a record of protected structures and is not a record of recommended protected structures. It is record of surveyed structures. That might then be put forward for recommendation. Which in turn may then be selected for protection.) Guliolopez (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's one sentence on that webpage. Another is: "Sites/structures/groups of structures given a Regional, National or International Rating by the NIAH are included in the Minister’s recommendations" (italics mine). And per your edit summary, not everyone who applies for a driving licence is given one. But everyone who is recommended for one by the appropriate authorities is. But whatever, my keep !vote stands. This building is, in my opinion, notable enough for inclusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Cavendish's article. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The NIAH source is excellent for our purpose. The place is also documented in other good sources such as Fodor. The place therefore passes WP:GNG and we're good. The nomination's complaint that we might have lots of similar articles is not a problem or reason to delete per policy WP:NOTPAPER, "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover". Andrew🐉(talk) 13:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Hi. RE: "documented in Fodors and NIAH means GNG is met". Two pieces of coverage (one Fodors review/entry and one NIAH entry) wouldn't seem to meet the WP:SIGCOV expectation of WP:GNG. RE: "No practical limit". Apologies if my nom note wasn't clear. But it wasn't intended to a "slippery slope" argument ("if we mirror this NIAH entry we have to mirror all"). It was intended to be NN/WP:GEOFEAT argument (that not every building is notable). RE: "NIAH is an excellent resource". Yes. It is. I rely on it myself all the time. To support content. It doesn't, however, automatically support notability. Guliolopez (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Those sources tick all the boxes for WP:SIGCOV and there's plenty more which highlight other aspects such as the ownership by the Brennans, when it was attacked by British soldiery. The place is notable architecturally and historically. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• RE "plenty sources that highlight ownership by Brennans and attack by British soldiers". Can you share those sources? The main reason for the nom was that I find no sources to support/expand the content. Not to mind establish notability. I also note that the text states that the Brennans were tenants. Rather than owners. If there are sources which confirm otherwise, they'd be good to have. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Andrew's comment above. NemesisAT (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Bearian. The information included is actually interesting (at least, the cited stuff that can be supported by sourcing), but I just don’t think it’s notable enough for its own page. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adolfo Campos Panadeiros

Adolfo Campos Panadeiros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Small town mayor, getting routine local coverage, fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. BD2412 T 01:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meeting WP:GNG per multiple reliabble independent sources. It's not routine local coverage as the nominator indicates. SportsOlympic (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the sources cited in the article, such as La Voz de Galicia and Faro de Vigo, are region-wide publications with high circulation, and therefore clearly represent more than routine coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the multiple sources already cited that allow this to pass WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG with sufficient sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dum Dum Dumroo

Dum Dum Dumroo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NFILM, with a lack of significant coverage in most of the sources. Also fails WP:GNG. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:NFILM. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salud Beverages

Salud Beverages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Promo piece about a non-notable ROTM business. Single source cited only once, and a search finds nothing beyond social media accounts, business/directory listings, and some press release regurgitations. Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. Previously speedied and subsequently quickly recreated, hence this AfD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although it should be noted that the article has has sources added since being nominated, none of these are reliable or independent of the subject: This even states that it was written by the company's founder, this does not seem to be independent of the subject either or neutral (I mean, what do you make of this: "Salud promises us a new beginning, a fresh life, with a 2.0 update! And given the year we’ve had, maybe a little G&T is exactly what we need!"), and this is almost from a reliable source, but just an "interview" with the founder Ajay Shetty. I myself found a very short text that mentions the company here, speaking about an investment. But it's not a full length article and not enough to establish notability by a long shot. Thus, delete. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is a PR exercise, with sources that, while they have improved, all also look like PR activity Dexxtrall (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Written like a PR release.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Denman

Anne Denman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I do not think I have ever seen so much written and yet so little said about the subject of an article. A cursory search on Google Books indicates to me that Anne Denman is not remembered as anything but a great-grandmother of an English queen. Yet, WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy states that Wikipedia is not a genealogy directory. Surtsicna (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being an ancestor to royalty is not in and of itself a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; on grounds that "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic", and in this case, the article is a well-written and referenced account of something related to the family history of the British royal family, which probably qualifies as a notable topic. I admit she's a bit of a backwater in British royal genealogy (and I personally couldn't care less who's married to whom in royal families) but this sort of stuff seems to be of interest to a lot of people. I.e. this isn't routine genealogy. Also, sadly, it was difficult for a woman in the 16th and 17th C to do anything much notable apart from be married. Elemimele (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Elemimele, please see WP:INVALIDBIO. Simply being related to someone, even if it is the British royal family, is not grounds for inclusion. (For what it is worth, her royal descendants consisted of only one generation, which ended in 1714.) Lots of people care about Britney Spears too but it does not mean we should have an article about Britney's grandmother. Anne Denman simply does not get significant coverage in reliable sources (WP:SIGCOV). Surtsicna (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely my point. Firstly, the coverage that Anne Denman gets is proportional to her place in history: people write about figures less and less as they fade into the past, and she lived 500 years ago. The sources referenced in the article aren't bad; there's no suspicion that they're biased; they're just the only places anyone is likely to write about a person who died so long ago. Those sources do suggest she would have been significant in her day, and if someone was once notable, they remain notable. Secondly, I think you're being a bit narrowly-legalistic about the rule that being related is not adequate grounds for being notable. The family tree of the Kings and Queens of the UK is a subject in which encyclopaedia readers take a legitimate interest (this isn't just a piece of nationalism; the same would be true of any of the major ruling families in world history). It's logically impossible to give information about a family tree without ending up writing about who is related to whom (that's what a family tree is). So the information about her family connections is valid encyclopaedia material somewhere. I'd agree it doesn't have to be in an article personally about her: if you can find a general page on kings and queens of the time, into which the information can be merged in such a way that little is lost, and where the information sits naturally, by all means merge. But straight deletion would weaken the encyclopaedia. Elemimele (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of pages are continuously written about people who actually are notable regardless of whether they lived 500 or 1000 or 2000 years ago. The sources cited in the article are nothing but genealogical publications, which merely confirm her existence. Nobody has written about, say, the influence she had on Stuart monarchs. (Likely because she did not have any.) She is just an extremely obscure relation about whom historians have nothing to say. The appropriate place to mention her would be the articles about her children who actually are notable. Surtsicna (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Being great-grandmother to two English monarchs would seem to make her notable. These aren't just run-of-the-mill people and that's close enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That argument blatantly contravenes WP:INVALIDBIO guideline, which says: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A." For Denman to be notable there has to be significant coverage of her, not of her great-granddaughters. There is no significant coverage of Denman, so she is not notable. In fact, since published biographies of Anne and Mary II do not mention this woman, she is not even notable enough to be mentioned in the articles about them, let alone have a standalone article, per WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. Surtsicna (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with taking things like this as gospel is that anyone who lives in the internet era will undoubtedly appear to be more notable than anyone who did not. We need to be careful about assuming people from history are not notable just because we can't find so much about them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not up to Wikipedia editors' to research historical people. It is the job of historians. If historians do not write about them, encyclopedias should not either. Surtsicna (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The above arguments for keeping seem to fly in direct contrast to our guidelines, namely WP:INVALIDBIO, and an argument in speculation about who should've been notable. Notability is chiefly demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources. "Those sources do suggest she would have been significant in her day, and if someone was once notable, they remain notable" is a comment which misses the mark. Construed significance/importance != significant coverage in reliable sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid the Magnificent

Leonid the Magnificent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lack of citations in references for information given, as most are primary sources; the article fails to include secondary sources, which increases the question of it conforming to WP:RS and WP:GNG GUtt01 (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete the subject has made multiple talent show appearances and I see a small amount of coverage for performances elsewhere. Nevertheless I don’t see that they have anything resembling significant roles, 2,190 Instagram followers doesn’t amount to a cult following, and I don’t see that they have made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment, so does not pass WP:ENT. Mccapra (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per the appearance on a nationally-known megashow like America's Got Talent, the two main features about him currently bulletlisted (although not currently cited) in the References section, and the brief pieces of events covered by sources such as NJ.com and Time Out New York mentioning him as involved. However, there's a lot more needed to make me !vote Strong Keep; the Las Vegas Review Journal source is local, and TheTrades ref is just a direct Q&A interview with him. Plus, like Mccapra states, the amount of coverage of his performances are small and very insignificant. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Those sources do appear don't add up to establishing notability, with a lack of reliable sources that focus specifically on him Dexxtrall (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secure Store and Forward

Secure Store and Forward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable. Wikipedia is not a software manual. PepperBeast (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article was clearly created to popularize the terminology used by one company (SAP). Also, when I discovered that there is a bunch of articles about SAP products and most of them do not meet notability requirements either. For example, SAP NetWeaver and List of SAP products (have links to other articles, some are red because were deleted per PROD, AfD and promotion, etc.) Anton.bersh (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- As above, this is a software catalogue entry. All the sources available are not independent. Reyk _YO! 07:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Second sentence of article is "SSF is intended to make documents secure no matter how they are stored or transferred." which looks like an advertisement. I agree with nom that this looks a bit like a software manual. Not much information here, so maybe WP:TNT or keep and substantially improve the article. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erminethrudis

Erminethrudis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There appears to be nothing notable about this woman. Her name only survives because her will survives. PepperBeast (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Her name only survives because her will survives" isn't nothing! She may not have been a particularly remarkable person but scholars appear to consider her will a valuable historical document. This could justify re-titling/re-framing the article around her will, or maaaaybe merging somewhere if we have a suitable longer target article on documents or inheritance or Merovingian women or I don't know, but the scholarship is there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. She and the will have been written about by multiple authors, another one of whom I just added at the article. No objection to moving to Testament of Erminethrudis if others think that reframing the will as notable is best. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment good point. PepperBeast (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have just added more information. Can't help seeing the gender aspect of this. Huge amounts of research on women's history is being published all of the time, and when I posted this initially I hoped that it would be added to in time. She would have been a hugely significant character in the Paris of her time, a major landowner, and a significant player in church politics. (sorry if this isn't how you contribute to this page but couldn't find another way.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalieben (talk • contribs) 17:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You state above that you "have just added more information", but there is no corresponding edit to the article. I am pointing this out in the hope that your additional information was not saved for some technical reason and that you can add it again. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG and expand, without changing the title of the article, because she created the will, and a source that discusses the significance of her action, with biographical information and context, includes: Caring for Body and Soul: burial and the afterlife in the Merovingian world (Effros, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002), and there is additional biographical information available in Framing the Early Middle Ages (Wickham, OUP Oxford, 2006). There also appears to be a variety of non-English sources available from Google Scholar. Beccaynr (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability doesn't require great deeds or accomplishments: it requires significant coverage in independent sources, a requirement which Erminethrudis clearly meets given the extensive scholarly interest. pburka (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An easy pass of WP:BASIC. See also WP:BEFORE. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep and support renaming/rewrite. My glance at the sources suggest that while she may not be notable, the testament of Erminethrudis is a notable historical document. I'd suggest therefore that this article should be tagged for a rewrite (since there is no applicable merge target). PS. Not sure what is the applicable copyediting template for 'this needs to be rewritten/refocused', it may be easier (for the nom) to withdraw this, and then rewrite the article and move it. That said, User:Beccaynr seems to oppose such a solution. But unless the additional biographical information is significant, I think any notability she has is derived from the document, not the other way around. She is not important, what her document tells us about the ancient way of life is. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To clarify my perspective, it appears to me that the document derives notability from who she was, and the sources highlighted in my comment above seem to help show that, and specifically, in Effros, the link includes, starting at p. 27, a discussion of her and her biographical information, and also states, "Erminethrudis's will demonstrates the far-reaching influence a widow might exercise in conjunction with her possession if no restrictions were placed upon her." Additional details of actions she took with her will are included at p. 196. The other source is Wickham, which at pp. 66, 68, 84, 123, and 233 discusses her vineyards and land, and apparently only notes her will as a footnote at p. 3802. Who she was appears to be covered in multiple independent and reliable sources, which to varying degrees also provide WP:SECONDARY analysis, synthesis and commentary on her life, the context, and her creation of the will. From my view, sources exist to support her notability as a person independent of the will that is relevant today because of what she accomplished during her life. Beccaynr (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr Thank you for elaborating on this. You make a solid claim, although I remain concerned that there is not enough to be written about her to de-stub the article, without discussing the significance of the document. Ditto for the testament itself. In other words, we may have two highly overlapping articles (about her and about the testament). Wouldn't one article be better? And if so, what's more significant: her or her testament? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Piotrus, and I think the will is part of her biography, because it is something she did. There is another source (Bouchard, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) with more biographical information, that also states she "was clearly an important landowner." Also, it is currently unclear to me how much there is to say about the will that is independent from her, and sufficient to justify its own article - the significance seems linked with her biography, i.e. it is notable that a woman created a will during this time period. I have not yet found sources (at least in part because I have not attempted to translate non-English sources) suggesting the will is related to an independent legal principle, but I would consider that a stronger justification for an article focused on the will, if those sources emerge. In the meantime, her BLP will not be the most lengthy of articles, but I think there is enough to create a biography that includes her will and its significance based on the currently available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr Fair enough. For now I just redirected the testament article to her bio; one article is justified, the other may warrant a 'categorized redirect'. We can revisit this one day if we end up with two nearly identical articles... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Beccaynr makes a good argument for why the testament is best contextualised in her biography, i.e. it wouldn't necessarily be notable if she hadn't been who she was. /Julle (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anar Alizade

Anar Alizade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is no RS coverage of this person in English language sources. Looking at his German and Azeri Wikpiedia pages, there doesn't appear to be any RS coverage in other languages either. As best I can tell, this Wikipedia page is just a glorified LinkedIn profile. It has no encyclopedic value and serves as an advertisement for the person. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, also noticed that about 40% of the article is from self-published primary sources. One day I'm gonna make a website and make a wikipedia article for myself out of it. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom + GNG.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG Nitesh003 (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already draftified. Daniel (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comikey

Comikey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lacks notability, all sources are press releases. Fram (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. While the sources cited are actually not press releases, they both only cover one event. According to the company's website, they were founded in 2020, so other sources (for now) are unlikely to exist. Link20XX (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep 

I do understand that Anime news network I cited as a reference is a press release as it is under there press release category https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/recent and I will remove that as a reference, but the crunchyroll link is indeed a secdondary source since it is not underneath there press release category https://www.crunchyroll.com/newsfeed/archive/press-release they also state when an article is a press release underneath the title of each article. as shown bellow

but for the article I listed from chrunchyroll

(https://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2021/07/12/comikey-media-licenses-eight-shogakukan-manga-series) Instead the article shows the name of the journalist who wrote the article

Links to the website the screenshots came from: Screenshot 1: https://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-press-release/2018/07/21-1/an-inside-look-at-mari-okadas-directorial-debut-maquia-when-the-promised-flower-blooms screenshot 2: https://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-press-release/2018/09/25-1/manga-translation-battle-of-professionals-begins Could an editor please review my article again please Side note: There are other reliable sources talking about different events regarding Comikey other than the licensing of the 8 manga I was actually planning on adding the other events after I created the article but I decided to deal with the deletion request first Nuope (talk)

The Crunchyroll article states at the bottom; "Source: Press release". The writer just seems to have summarized the press release, that's all. Fram (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The author is using the afore mentioned anime news network article as his source. Crunchyroll will not use any press releases sent to them as sources unless stated so then it will be under the press release category as it is against there policy as another user stated my sources are not press releases however they are using a Press release as their source and according to my knowledge there is nothing against Wikipedia's notability rules that states that you can't use articles that use a press release as source as they are still secondary sources.

Nuope (talk)

• • While they aren't press releases, I would say they don't meet the WP:CORPDEPTH needed to count to GNG. Link20XX (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I only used those articles as sources for the partnership category in which case I feel like they do meet the requirements to cite as a reliable source for "partnerships", but if your talking about whether or not the comikey article has received enough coverage to be a wikipedia article that's something different. I could give links to articles that I think(not entirely sure) give it notable coverage as a company as a whole.Nuope

(talk)

• • Please do. If you can find enough sources to make it pass WP:NCORP, per WP:NEXIST the current state of the article is irrelevant. Link20XX (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• https://media-innovation.jp/2021/06/04/link-u-and-comikey-media-formed-a-partnership/ https://www.sankei.com/economy/news/210715/prl2107150072-n1.html

here are some other articles but looking at them now I doubt they pass WP:CORPDEPTH since there both only talking about one event I do have some other articles that don't cover a specific event of comikey event but there all lists like "best of" or "Top ___" Nuope (talk)

The second (from sankei.com) definitely is a press release(rather than using it as a source), the first one (media-innovation) reads like one but it's not clear whether it truly is a press release or just some paraphrasing of it. Fram (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above links are not press releases the link to the press release is here https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000023.000038982.html https://imgur.com/2JjKdGU(proof that pr times is a press release) I will however remove the sankei link since it is just a direct copy n paste from the orginal pr and is unreliable

Uh, a "direct copy n paste" of a press release, with an indication in the url that it is a press release, and with a box stating that it is a press release and that Sankei is not responsible for the contents, is "not a press release"? Okay... Fram (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• it's not sankei(there is no indication in the url it is a pr to begin with) like I said just copy and pasted the orginal pr(PR TIMES) hence https://imgur.com/ljNyZzr https://imgur.com/qzxZpdR Saying that the press release does not belong to them(it makes more sense in the orginal japenses google translate butchred a few things) they added links to the original source. it is technically NOT a press release as the definiton: an official statement issued to newspapers giving information on a particular matter. It is like I said a copy and paste with no revision

the topic was not submitted to submitted to them directly. Nuope (talk)

• Delete None of the sources provided or that I could find are independent enough (not derived from a press release) to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I also couldn't find a suitable merge or redirect target. However a category listing the series that they have licenses for may be a partial WP:ATD (ex. Category:Viz Media manga or Category:Yen Press titles). Jumpytoo Talk 19:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I would like the article moved to draftspace instead of deletion for the time being also thank you User:Jumpytoo for the suggestion I will try to make a list of all of there licensed series instead. After thinking this through I agree with User:Link20XX that maybe it is to earlier for this particular company to have an article so I'll try to move it to draftspace for now Nuope (talk)

Draft Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Comikey (for those that might want to add stuff later)

• Well since it was draftified by the page creator, can we get this closed? Link20XX (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable company failing WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH with no reliable independent in-depth sources (at least what English search returns and what is listed above). The given sources are not GNG-compatible and are only briefly paraphrasing press releases and official and routine material. Possibly WP:TOOSOON, but these sort of companies rarely receive in-depth coverage. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jarmo Viteli

Jarmo Viteli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD declined in 2010 (courtesy @Abductive and Cnilep: when notability guidelines were rather different. A BEFORE shows no evidence since that he passes WP:ACADEMIC. He has published, but doesn't appear well-cited enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC and appears to be co-author on some of the more highly cited ones. I can find no evidence in English, Finnish or the Finnish article about him that would indicate he meets GNG or other criteria. Star Mississippi 15:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't know this scholar's work and can't argue confidently for their notability, but I do see many (50+) papers on Google Scholar by an author "J Viteli". Many of them are written in Finnish and none seem to be in my field of specialty, so I don't know and can't ascertain the reliability of the publications. Cnilep (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Having many publications is not enough for notability, whether we are going by WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:PROF. For all of these, in different ways, it is the impact of those publications that we must assess. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete 45 publications with 29 citations as per MA is not impressive and does not pass the bar for WP:NPROF#1, no other information in the article indicates any notability. Also clear COI with the article talking about him as a reviewer for EU projects, this is clearly written by someone close to the subject. --hroest 18:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Citations too low for WP:PROF#C1, no other notability criterion evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Moving past the SNG v GNG debate, the primary point of difference in the views around whether the coverage in the sources provided is routine or not (for GNG). I assess the consensus on this issue as being to delete the article. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Williams

Cam Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NBASEBALL, has not played beyond college level WWGB (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep A short search turned up multiple articles that go towards WP:GNG. [9][10][11] Alvaldi (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are all about college baseball, which fails WP:NBASEBALL. If someone had three articles about playing Little League, that would not entitle them to an article. WWGB (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBASEBALL does not supersede WP:GNG, that is made crystal clear in the FAQ on the top of WP:NSPORT which WP:NBASEBALL is a part of.

Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability.)

Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)

Q3: If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards?
A3: No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist.)

To pass WP:GNG, the subject has to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So if a number of national or major state news publications write a number (GNG only says multiple) of indepth articles on a baseball player, young or old, amateur or professional, then there is a good chance that he passes the notable criteria for a stand-alone article. Alvaldi (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Articles provided by Alvaldi are nowhere near enough to pass GNG.-- Yankees10 22:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We could find this many articles on many high school players. It is a misapplication of GNG to think it is passed here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Alvaldi is of course completely correct, as he has demonstrated, that meeting GNG is sufficient. Also, it matters not a whit what the articles are about - they could be about t-ball. GNG doesn't care. So we don't care. If they are GNG worthy, so is the subject. I just, same as yankees, don't see these articles as meeting GNG. But those who hang their hat on this other, faulty, argument are incorrect in their assertions. 2603:7000:2143:8500:643C:473C:C984:2D47 (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the basketball project has been alerted, but that I think should be the baseball project.2603:7000:2143:8500:643C:473C:C984:2D47 (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Rather non-stellar career in college baseball, not in the Majors yet. Any putz can bat .289. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Even Tony Gwynn managed that, in his rookie season. 2603:7000:2143:8500:643C:473C:C984:2D47 (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except Gwynn did it as 22 year old major league rookie while Williams was 23 and playing college baseball. It was the only season Gwynn's BA was below .300 in his 20 years in MLB. Papaursa (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He fails to meet WP:NBASE or WP:NCOLLATH. The coverage also fails to meet WP:GNG. The SI article is routine sports reporting, while burntorangenation.com and Longhorns Wire are definitely not independent since he was playing for the U. of Texas. The San Antonio Express article is not really out of the ordinary coverage for a player on the Texas baseball team. There's certainly nothing to show he's WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG on the basis of the SI and SA Express articles, and once GNG is met NBASE does not matter. The argument that those two sources are too routine (regardless of whether that is true or not, which is highly subjective) is a misapplication of policy; nowhere does GNG discount routine coverage. Rather, WP:ROUTINE is part of WP:NEVENTS and says that an event might not merit an article even if it meets GNG. An event notability guideline should not be applied to a biography. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "SI article" is coverage of one game and is part of its "Fan Nation-Longhorns Country" section. That's not significant coverage. Pretty much every athlete who ever played a high school sport has been mentioned in an article on a game and there's no way they're all WP notable. It's highly debatable that even two good sources are enough to meet WP:GNG and these are not that good. Papaursa (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A couple of profiles and a game recap are not significant coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sal LaBarbera

Sal LaBarbera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable and therefore nothing more than WP:BIO violation bait.Central and Adams (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The only reliable sourcing is mostly about his 2011 Twitter controversy, which is WP:ONEEVENT at best. Furthermore the only RS piece that addressed more than that was an op-ed by Steve Lopez, which is hardly news reporting, although, as I said, it is at least RS. Central and Adams (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per WP:BASIC. Disregarding the many mentions in the context of his job, (murders get a lot of press, and a homicide detective is often interviewed about the investigation), there are two long profiles on his retirement[12][13] (the LA Weekly one has some decent bio details not in the article yet) and one shorter one.[14] Then a long profile on him two years after his retirement.[15] On the one hand, these are local coverage; on the other hand, the greater Los Angeles area is larger than Delaware and Rhode Island combined, so I don't think "local" is necessarily disqualifying in this instance. adding Per a source posted at Talk:Sal LaBarbera, the LA Weekly profile is written by a friend of LaBarbera's, so is not independent for consideration of notability. Schazjmd (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As far as I can tell this is WP:BLP1E for the dead body tweet which created a little local notoriety, but not true notability. Just a WP:ROTM cop with a second career after retirement. Fails WP:BIO Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The revision history of the article contains content that was removed for now, per WP:ONUS, but which has also been addressed in the deletion discussion above. As the discussion seems to focus on notability, the current state of the article itself, and whether this material is currently part of it, should not have an influence. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG and per above, coverage is not enough to qualify GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Source is sketchy at best, but even if it were immaculate, still fails the "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" test (WP:GNG). And even if subject were to be seen as notable, it's only for WP:ONEEVENT. Two grounds for deletion clearly established. Johnnie Bob (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hind Rattan

Hind Rattan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable vanity award. The first two sources are press releases from recipients/marks, the other two are unrelated to the award. A web search only turns up churnalism. Cabayi (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Wonderful Perfect

Beautiful Wonderful Perfect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews or significant coverage was found in a WP:BEFORE.

PROD removed in 2017 with the rationale, "It's a nationally released feature film. Please take this to AfD". Donaldd23 (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Review: https://donunghub.com/?p=497

Review/coverage: https://intrend.trueid.net/bangkok/i-am-sam-vs-%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%AD%E0%B9%8B%E0%B8%AD%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%AB%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%AD-%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A1%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%AB%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%B7%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%B5%E0%B9%88%E0%B9%81%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%95%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%87-trueidintrend_75465

Review: https://www.sanook.com/movie/20752/

Coverage, a “where are they now” piece about the child actor from the film, published in 2017: https://entertain.teenee.com/thaistarphoto/167180.html

Review: http://www.reviewnangthai.com/%e0%b9%80%e0%b8%ad%e0%b9%8b%e0%b8%ad%e0%b9%80%e0%b8%ab%e0%b8%a3%e0%b8%ad-%e0%b8%a0%e0%b8%b2%e0%b8%9e%e0%b8%a2%e0%b8%99%e0%b8%95%e0%b8%a3%e0%b9%8c%e0%b8%97%e0%b8%b5%e0%b9%88%e0%b9%80%e0%b8%a5%e0%b9%88/

Coverage, 2019 social media coverage from Sahamongkol Film International: https://m.facebook.com/Sahamongkolfilm/posts/10157440938724214

Etc etc. Nominator did not do a basic Google search. 71.85.19.7 (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A major 2005 film, winner of three Suphannahong Awards (the "Thai Oscars")[16]. Covered in a comparative film analysis academic paper[17] and a doctoral thesis[18]. Subject of contemporary news coverage, e.g. in Manager[19]. Most news coverage and critic reviews from 2005 will no longer available online, but can be expected to be accessible via a good research library. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Paul_012. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources listed above. NemesisAT (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Paul_012. /Julle (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bajo el mismo Cielo (film)

Bajo el mismo Cielo (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 14:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Nama 'Bansiwala'

Rajesh Nama 'Bansiwala' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NPOL and is not independently notable outside of the election. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — but nothing else here establishes that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independently of an unsuccessful candidacy, and nothing here suggests a reason to treat his candidacy as markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies either. Bearcat (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He is non notable politician. On searching about him on Google, some article related to his election loss comes up. Nitesh003 (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable polotician. Fails NPOL & GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biodynamic enzymology

Biodynamic enzymology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Essay-type, uncritical eulogy of what appears to be a fringe concept championed by a tiny group, sourced almost entirely to predatory journals (AFAICS these are all Science Publishing Group). Apart from the bad sourcing, I don't quite know what to make of this; I feel I'm being out-waffled. The (euphemistically) "lede" and the first two sections could be removed with no loss at all, as could the first half of section three. Then we are finally getting into material not covered elsewhere, and - is it? Is this just the claims of one guy (Ferorelli)? Even if the concept were notable, this article comes with so many warning signs I'd like to see it taken round the shed directly. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete That's a real stinker. "Biodynamic" in this context basically means "magic". There don't seem to be any objective treatments of the subject, only FRINGE garbáge. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:FRINGE nonsense Dexxtrall (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For the love of Zeus, what is this? Kill it with fire. Note that the same bizarre content is duplicated in Enzymology, perhaps you should bundle it together in this AfD. Tercer (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enzymology has been redirected to enzyme, so it shouldn't be a problem unless the bad content is restored. XOR'easter (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yes, enzymes are dynamic systems, and they play a role in biological dynamics. But there is no such thing as Biodynamic enzymology. My very best wishes (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. XOR'easter (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Cinadon36 08:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akiba (film)

Akiba (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Nothing notable found. Kolma8 (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda McDougall

Amanda McDougall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, not adequately referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not deemed "inherently" notable just because they exist, so making a mayor notable enough for inclusion is not a question of just showing minimal verification that she exists -- mayoral notability is a question of demonstrating her political significance, by writing and sourcing substantive content about specific things she did as mayor, specific projects she spearheaded, significant effects she had on the development of the community, and on and so forth. But this just verifies her initial election as mayor and sources a small amount of trivia about her career background, which is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These sources help support notability per WP:NPOL footnote 8, A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists: CBRM councillor who clashed occasionally with mayor announces run for top job (CBC, 2020), Cape Breton mayor started first day in office with new baby boy (Global News, 2021), CBRM mayor speaks of son's condition on World Down Syndrome Day (CTV News, 2021) and WP:BASIC: McDougall defeats Clarke to become 1st female mayor of CBRM (CBC, 2020), Cape Breton elects first female mayor, Halifax council reaches gender parity (Toronto Star, 2020). Beccaynr (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign coverage and verification of election results doesn't cut it. We require coverage about the political impact of her mayoralty: specific things she did as mayor, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects she had on the development of the city, and on and so forth — just sourcing that she ran and won, something which we can always do for every single mayor who ever mayored in every place that ever had mayors, is not in and of itself enough. We have to be able to write a substantive article about her political significance, not just a short blurb about her election results and a baby. Bearcat (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National news sources found it politically significant that she is the first woman elected mayor of the Cape Breton Regional Municipality, that she began her term by bringing her child to work, and that she participated in World Down Syndrome Day, so these sources appear to support WP:BASIC, and the in-depth features focused on her appear to support WP:NPOL, and can allow a more in-depth article to be developed. There is also more biographical information available from local news 2 3 4. Beccaynr (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are "national" sources. The CBC's local news bureau in Nova Scotia does not reify into "national" coverage just because the URL happens to have the letters "CBC" in it — it's still coverage from a local affiliate, and not coverage from the national news division in Toronto. Same goes for Global Halifax and CTV Atlantic: that's local coverage, not "national" coverage, because it comes from the local affiliates and not the national news divisions. It's the same as in the United States: just because KXAS-TV happens to be an NBC affiliate does not mean that its local news stories about local topics in Fort Worth automatically transform into "nationalized" coverage from NBC News. Bearcat (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another feature article from a national source, Cape Breton elects Amanda McDougall as its first female mayor (Canadian Press, 2020) and if the 'local' news is published on national websites, it may be a distinction without a difference. My point ultimately is that she appears to meet the guidelines for WP:BASIC notability and WP:NPOL as written, and the article can be expanded with the variety of sources posted in this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Also, from my view, there are multiple independent and reliable sources that offer WP:SECONDARY analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas, including but not limited to reporting about her being the first woman mayor, which requires a synthesis of facts related to the number of women previously elected to the post, and per policy, Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Beccaynr (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, local vs. national coverage is not a "distinction without a difference" in Canada just because the local news bureaux post their reportage to local sections of the parent corporation's website instead of each having their own standalone websites — the distinction between local vs. national coverage still works exactly the same way as it does in the United States, you just have to look in different places to determine which of those things any given piece of coverage is. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly have more to learn about news distribution in Canada, and I appreciate the clarification - in the US, local affiliates are often not so smoothly integrated with their national parent websites, and instead have their own websites, which makes it easier to identify and consider as more limited in scope. But, as noted above, she still has coverage in The Canadian Press, and my comments have been intended to highlight how her coverage is more than the more obviously local (at least to me) Cape Breton Post. Beccaynr (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: there's significant coverage of specific things that make her notable beyond just being elected. For example: Global News on her being the first female mayor of Cape Breton, Global News on her work/life balance of being a mayor and a parent of a newborn, CTV News about Down's Syndrome advocacy. She's also been notable enough to appear in several different articles before being elected mayor - like the Cape Breton Spectator covering her 2016 run for city councillor, her questioning of the Port of Sydney Development Corporation, her call for a Nominee Program for immigrants, CBC News quoting her for Lifeline Syria, quoting her concerning the MV Miner wreck, covering a controversy involving her as a city councillor, about a committee appearance she was supposed to make in the federal House of Commons, Saltwire covering her Down's Syndrome advocacy, CTV News covering her and the port issue, etc... NHCLS (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Quoted as giver of soundbite in news article about some other subject besides herself" is not support for notability. "The local newspaper covered her campaign for a local municipal council seat, in exactly the same equal-time way that it always covers every candidate in every municipal election in its coverage area" is not support for notability. "Speaking to a House of Commons committee" is not a notability claim per se, and neither is "was scheduled to speak to a House of Commons committee but got cancelled because of a filibuster". And on and so forth: we're looking for content about her political impact and her effect on the political, social and economic development of the city, not just "any news article whatsoever that can be found with her name in it". Bearcat (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article about her filibustered committee appearance, it's specifically about a pilot program for Cape Breton which she was pushing for, the articles about the port issue were specifically about what she was doing to address the issue, the Down's syndrome articles are specifically about her advocacy and relation to it, etc... - those aren't just articles with her name in it, they're specific content about her political impact and her effect on the political, social and economic development of the city. NHCLS (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing for a project that hasn't been implemented is not a notable "effect on the political, social and economic development of the city", and advocating for an issue that has no municipal component for the CBRM to do anything about is not a meaningful "political impact". Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those two things were notable enough to gain media coverage. NHCLS (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per the very well reasoned presentation of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm convinced that there are enough sources, such as those presented above, to meet GNG. There is more than a typical soundbite or general election coverage, which generally is not counted for notability purposes. She is the mayor of a pretty significant place in Nova Scotia, and while this is not an automatic pass, it is an indication that it isn't like a town with 20,000 people. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep While I don't believe that the local cape breton spectator references do much for notability as it is pretty local, I do think that the other references barely meet GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per additional sources provided by voters and consensus. (non-admin closure) Peter303x (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Forte

Joe Forte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced biography that fails WP:BIO. Fails WP:GNG as well as no significant coverage in reliable sources can be found. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]