Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 26	July 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to List of Amazon locations#Canada. Clear consensus that the article shouldn't exist, but split between delete and redirect; choosing the later per WP:ATD. Daniel (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon in Ontario

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

Amazon has 185 fulfillment centers around the world, not unlike other major retail corporations, listed at List_of_Amazon_locations#Fulfillment_and_warehousing. I don't think it's notable (i.e. discussed as a specific group per WP:LISTN) or encyclopedic to split that list for those in a particular province to have routine local news about warehouses. Reywas92^Talk 23:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 23:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 23:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, this article does not meet notability for organisations: WP:ORGCRITE --Whiteguru (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amazon is obviously notable but warehouses in Ontario are not. Fails notability for organizations. Coverage is only routine facts in local news. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how most of this is "routine facts." A complete disregard for safety during COVID, the issuing of a municipal zoning order (which is only used in extreme cases) to prevent the destruction of a provincially-significant wetland, and a North American record in inventory tower size?
- Per "local news", that's solely because they were the best sources for the news. The COVID plight made national newspapers in Canada, like The National Post. Similarly national The Globe and Mail mentioned the words Amazon and Brampton 34 times in 2020, 2021, according to the ProQuest database. Beyond that, local newspapers across the country carried the stories of Amazon's wildfire cases, like [The Vancouver Sun. -- Zanimum (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Amazon locations#Canada. Nfitz (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if nothing else move to Amazon in Canada, which would talk about their larger practices. During the initial waves of COVID, their warehouses absolutely crippled Peel (Brampton, Mississauga, Caledon in the article) with cases. In Pickering, they attempt to build on provincially-significant wetland. Their inventory tower in Caledon is considered the largest in the world. In short, they are constantly noteworthy. -- Zanimum (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nfitz; we don't need detailed coverage of the construction of every warehouse, and "Amazon employee gets COVID" is simply not notable on its own. There's nothing else of note here that can't be covered in List of Amazon locations#Canada. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:48, 30 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 23:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love Possibly

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

Promo about incredibly obscure film written by a writer-director-producer of the film. Orange Mike | Talk 23:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NFILM says, inter-alia, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, ... well for the number of awards this film has received there is a marked paucity of coverage of these awards, leading to a remarkable paucity of references and WP:TOOSOON for this film. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't really find anything about this film, despite the multitude of awards, at least some of which seem to be vanity awards given by outlets that award a large amount of films several times a year. None of the awards seems to be able to give even partial notability and that, paired with the dearth of coverage makes me see this movie as failing NFILM. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially it looks like the person in charge of sending out and/or promoting the film went on Film Freeway and selected everything they could. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM, didn't get enough significant coverage. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there's just no coverage of the film in reliable sources that would enable us to back up anything we write about it. The award-coverage ratio is really strange, but I think it's best explained by, as ReaderofthePack suggests, the filmmakers submitting their film to every outlet on FilmFreeway or some similar such service in an effort to construct a Potemkin village of praise. Many of these non-notable festivals seem design to churn out the greatest number of awards in the shortest amount of time; Oneiros and the Monthly Film Festival, for example, award hundreds of obscure films films each month. We're here to summarize what reliable sources have to say about given subjects; if they don't say anything at all, it only befits us to do the same. —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite apparently being shown at more film festivals than one can shake a stick at, seems to have almost zero coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alice, Darling

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a film still in the production pipeline, not yet the subject of sufficient reliable source production coverage to separate its notability from the primary criteria at WP:NFILM. We do not routinely create or keep articles about every single film that goes into production just because one or two casting announcements can be found for technical verification -- we permit articles in advance of release for a limited selection of very high profile projects (e.g. Star Wars, Marvel) that get a lot of coverage during the production process, but the overwhelming majority of films are neither notable nor entitled to Wikipedia articles until they're actually released and getting reviewed by film critics. But of the three footnotes here, two are just two different industry magazines reporting the same casting announcement on the same day, and the third is a government "projects in production" directory listing that isn't support for notability at all — which is not enough sourcing to give this film the "high profile enough to not have to wait until it's released" pass. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep both sources Hollywood Reporter and Deadline Hollywood are greenlisted in WP:RSP so this does actually pass WP:GNG as these are in-depth coverage of the film. Applicable is WP:NFF: Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, but this seems to be the case here. --hroest 14:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NFF is not a blanket exemption from NFO for every unreleased film that's still in the production pipeline, just because it can be shown that one casting announcement got reported in the trades. NFF is for very high profile projects (e.g. Star Wars, Marvel) that get a lot of coverage (i.e. considerably more than just one or two hits) during the production process, while the normal notability criteria that most films have to pass is still NFO. Bearcat (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify NFF does not indicate when it is appropriate to have an article, it just indicates when it is not appropriate. Despite the the coverage being from a independent RS, the coverage here is not significant. It is run-of-the-mill production announcements. That does not make the production notable. BOVINEBOY2008 16:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found articles in Stylist [1], Vulture [2], and Marie Claire [3]. It would seem the pandemic-driven Hollywood news drought means these sorts of publications are more enthusiastic about articles like this than they might normally be. Nonetheless, these are not duplicates or re-printed promotional press releases, but articles written by staff-writers from high-profile publications. Combined with the above, that's enough significant coverage for me. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will say, too, that a number of sources seem to have appeared in the week since this was nominated and there's not way the nominator (Bearcat) could have seen them. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The new improvements and sources added to page passes the article for WP:GNG. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the work put in by Stalwart111, and the sources they mention above, that have established notability. NemesisAT (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deaftify per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. The sources in the article and produced above are not WP:SIGCOV and they essentially repeat each other. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Inhumans. Daniel (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Maximoff

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

Topic fails WP:GNG. No particular coverage outside of trivial mentions in trashy listicles from what I can see. TTN (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with the Inhuman Royal Family section of List of Inhumans. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Inhumans as per above, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DON'T PRESERVE. No evidence of any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that would justify this character having its own article. Avilich (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Inhumans - I'm not finding any sources regarding the character outside of primary sources and plot summaries. The character is already covered on the main Inhumans list, and can be simply redirected there. Rorshacma (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per all above to List of Inhumans. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Inhumans, no evidence this meets WP:GNG, comic-type WP:FANCRUFT, plot summary only. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 31 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) 23:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish restaurants

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

Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. All of the listed restaurants are redlinks, and there's not even a Turkish restaurants article to redirect to. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not just reform or redo the Article? So you can just do the Famous ones. Dunutubble (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Famous" is not a well-established concept. We do have "notability", and that is a reasonable standard of WP:LISTCRITERIA. That means we strip it down to bluelinks. Only two of the entries are bluelinked, and one I tagged for speedy, so we don't have enough to merit a list. An alternative criterion is that the topic itself is notable. We don't have any refs that support the topic of "Turkish restaurants" as itself a notable concept. DMacks (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The user was banned for spamming. If there were enough Wikipedia articles for Turkish restaurants to warrant a list article, then it'd be justified, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Dream Focus 00:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing useful about this list. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing wrong in having such a list, provided notability has been demonstrated in each individual case, but that is not the case here. Kerberous (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that it consists only of "articled" entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawing, did not notice AfD from just 1 year ago that was closed as Keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Persephone (The Matrix)

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

Non-notable character in the Matrix franchise. Current article contents mostly consists of plot summaries. Natg 19 (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:58, 27 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 draftify. Daniel (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Wyatt (footballer)

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

Had already been deleted. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY (for now). Can be drafted until he makes his League Two debut for Sutton. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom - as a lifelong Us fan, I look forward to seeing national news sources producing coverage for every Sutton player this season. Wyatt will very likely meet notability guidelines at some point in the next year but I don't see enough for WP:GNG right now so draft space is for the best. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify fails WP:GNG, but may be okay at some point in the near future, as he's signed to a fully professional club. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft per above. Govvy (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Can be created if he receives enough significant coverage to pass GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I think this is someone who is reasonably likely to meet GNG soon, but does not meet it at the present time. Dunarc (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: How is there not consensus to draftify from the comments above? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:37, 27 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 23:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki X Chucky

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

Non notable rapper who doesn’t meet WP:MUSICBIO. He’s considered to be “upcoming”, qualifies as WP:TOOSOON. Xclusivzik (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has a few puff pieces at the typical African hype sites that merely reprint press releases, and otherwise he is only visible in the usual social media and streaming services. He does not yet have the reliable and significant media coverage to establish notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, lacks significant online coverage. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 16:26, 28 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 & restart. Put simply, this discussion is too much of a mess to even begin trying to form a consensus. It has been disrupted by IP's, new accounts, single purpose accounts, to the point that it is unworkable as an internal process discussion. I will be creating a new discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bmcabana SF (2nd nomination), semi-protecting the discussion to minimize disruption, linking to my close here, and restarting from scratch. Daniel (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bmcabana SF

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Recently recreated article about an artist which does not meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Full disclosure, this subject has had a history of sockpuppetry in the AFC space see the history at Draft:Bmcabana SF to the point of the draft space being salted. If this subject is deemed not sufficiently notable for inclusion I do recommend salting this title as well. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In addition to the comments above: since salting Draft:Bmcabana SF, a draft has been created at Draft:Bmcabana-SF. This draft was twice turned down at AfC, followed by the article being created directly in mainspace. Fully support salting of all variations of this title. --John B123 (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist did an interview with the south african news giant The Sowetan [1] and its a reliable source. the newspaper is also available on pressreader.comZefu zungu (11:01 PM, 27 July 2021 (CAT)

Im not connected to the subject or any other party, I have helped improve other articles already in the main space and all seems to work just fine, im still trying to contribute more meaningful Zefu zungu(11:04 PM, 27 July 2021 (CAT)

An interview is generally considered a primary source and are not considered for notability this falls under WP:NOR. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable individual who doesn’t meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Additionally I don’t think the author has been assuming Good faith, he/she has been removing content from quite a number of articles [4]-[5], [6], [7]. -Xclusivzik (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move to draft space~~ True, because the pages you listed all showed at the top of each page that the pages had a number of issues that needed to be solved by any available editor, I was available then I removed broken links and links that did not support the statements made, yes the pages where created by you I read the page information, you made slight mistakes, which was no harm because i was there to assist, but you have since reverted the changes, i don't know why because the issues are still there,Zefu zungu (12:06 PM 28 July 2021 (CAT)

Struck through older contradicting vote, the earlier one was changed to keep later then this one. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely unfair treatment now I'm receiving emails from unknown individuals who tell me, they saw the article I created was nominated for AFD, they claimed they will close the discussion and that they are administrators. They insisted that my article will be restored after deletion, only if I paid $500. But thanks to the scam alert Wikipedia warned us about. I didn't entertain such scammers, because I don't want to pay anyone for the articles I create to be on Wikipedia, I only want my articles to be on Wikipedia only if they meet guideline policies. I urge others to avoid requesting AFD and then run to emails of editors to propose courtesy for closing discussions. Lets all practice Good faith when editing Zefu zungu (04:06 PM 29 July 2021) (Cat)

Keep The individual, he amongst other have helped us as community fight crime in our community of Seshego, as Wikipedia reader and editor, I have seen on SABC news Channel being interviewed about the course he does, Wikipedia is not about people who are only famous, but also about people who change lives,https://www.dailysun.co.za/News/thugs-hide-in-abandoned-house-20200623 this link was about they organisation he is part of the founders of, the story coverage was seen making the news back in 2020. Thank you. Zillythekid44 (09:14 29 July 2021)— Zillythekid44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is a place which we record what reliable sources have said about notable subjects. Lots of people do good things that aren't notable enough for inclusion. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep COI or not, Zefu zungu has a point. Just claiming "Fails X" is not helpful when a lot of sources are mentioned. And claims that those sources are all unable to be correct either [link]https://reviewonline.co.za/polokwane-news-team/ appears to be a reliable source (editorial board and all) covering the subject in detail (remember, blogs by reliable sources are usually reliable sources as well). Same goesbfor the coverage in the The Sowetan, and SAGOODNEWS https://sagoodnews.co.za, bothe are clearly reliable sources, That this contain interview parts does not disqualify them ad reliable sources. While Roodepoort https://Roodepoortrecord.co.za accepts submissions, it [performs editorial control]https://roodepoortrecord.co.za/about-us-new/ , which should suffice to make it a reliable source as well. A short Google news search finds other sources and articles but not in one place, but they also give details aboutbthe subject, the sourced articles meet criteria for Wikipedia inclusion for basic criteria WP:BASIC

Regards WIKIZILE 09: 56 AM 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment This keep !vote was posted by an IP adding a signature of an editor who hasn't posted since February 2021. --John B123 (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have 2 sources which seem to be reliable from local online zines, published less then a month apart. We also need to see sustained coverage. Of the 2 sources that can be considered significant about this artist they are quite simply 2 feel good stories about a local artist who is trying to follow his dream. He may one day be notable enough when his music charts or if he lands some significant roles in multiple notable productions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article was nominated for deletion only after several hours after it was created, so of course its not going to be in perfect shape. Deletion should be considered after conducting a thorough WP:BEFORE search and examining the entire extent of the subject's coverage in reliable sources, rather than just whats currently in the article, Regardless this subject meets WP:GNG criteria with significant coverage. Khorommbi.rudzani 11:49 AM 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment This keep !vote was posted by an IP adding a signature of an editor who hasn't posted since October 2018. --John B123 (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubify references in WP:RS are very short, but enough to prove existence, profession and birth palce/ backround. The light of coverage that has been brought up seems sufficient to meet NMUSIC. Kelutral (13:49 AM 30 July 2021) (UTC)

Comment This keep !vote was posted by an IP adding a signature of an editor who hasn't posted since November 2018. --John B123 (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you haven't read WP:NMUSIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:WHATNOT. Articles need to do more then just prove existence they need to tell us why they are notable and prove it. This article fails that on all accounts. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is of less fortunate for the author and editor to violate part of policy, but the article meets criteria for inclusion. The article passes GNG per sources provided, although the article still needs to provide more insight about the acting career. Salting of the title will be unfair treatment, because the subject is not the one who created the article, punishment should result for the editor and not the subject, it also appears to me that the editor is still a rookie, but pulled the article right. So far everything is clear about this article. The discussion should just end. MukwevhoM (15:02 AM 30 July 2021) (CAT)

Comment This keep !vote was posted by an IP adding a signature of an editor who hasn't posted since July 2020. --John B123 (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Comment Yes , I didn't log in because I'm using a mobile device, IP policy also IP address, outlines that different editors may use the same IP address in some instances, but in this case the IP has not made an edit before because this is my new device, I never used it to log on my Wikipedia account, normally I use my desktop,a vote is a vote, sometimes they come from people who don't have registered accounts, that don't stop them from taking part in this discussion. IP is not a concern now, but whether the article should be kept or not, my last edit has nothing to do with this discussion. Taking a break doesnt mean my days as a visitor/reader and editor are over, the comment above is not even supported by policy, let's avoid SABOTAGEbotage. PLEASE DON'T EDIT THIS COMMENT IF IT'S NOT MADE BY YOU. MukwevhoM (08:52 PM (CAT)

The comment was not deleted simply moved to the talkpage where off topic conversations can be brought up like the forgery policy per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by WP:Consensus, IP address checking was never a way of achieving consensus. Proper concerns are raised during discussion, IP never been a factor, im certain that you once made an edit withoiut loggin in, the reason remains with you and never you been asked about it till today, so why raise it in this discussion.Do not edit or remove this comment Zefu zungu (12::35 PM 31 July 2021) (CAT)

Keep Notability is notability, even if the article is permastub. The fact that sources that cover news in the country have featured the subject should be considered. As per sources found as well, the article is not perfect but seems better to expand than delete. Motseki 6:16 PM, 30 July 2021 (CAT)

Off topic conversation about WP:SIGFORGE moved to talk page

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.sondz.com/artist/Bmcabana-SF?gid=dc41a0a9-f76d-4dfe-89f4-091031cda058	? Page is leading to an error			✘ No
https://hypemagazine.co.za/music/upcoming-rapper-from-polokwane-015/			It's a single line	✘ No
https://reviewonline-epaper.products.caxton.co.za/wp-content/ftp/epaper_uploads/58/Bonus_Review_29_April_2021/Bonus_Review_29_April_2021.pdf			Feel good article about up and coming local artist	✔ Yes
https://roodepoortrecord-epaper.products.caxton.co.za/wp-content/ftp/epaper_uploads/17/Roodepoort_Record_21_May_2021/Roodepoort_Record_21_May_2021-1.pdf			Feel good article about up and coming local artist	✔ Yes
https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/sebenza-live/2021-07-13-muso-reaps-rewards-after-using-nsfas-cash-to-fund-career/	It's an interview of the subject.			✘ No
https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/limpopo/pupils-protest-over-school-chairs-1917167			Does not mention the subject at all.	✘ No
https://reviewonline.co.za/58546/learners-left-in-the-lurch-at-luthuli/			Does not mention the subject at all.	✘ No
https://reviewonline.co.za/449228/talent-hunter-productions-presents-the-centre-stage-limpopo-talent-competition/		This is a reprint of a press release	Does not mention the subject at all.	✘ No
https://www.dailysun.co.za/News/thugs-hide-in-abandoned-house-20200623			Does not mention the subject at all.	✘ No
https://buckrollbeats.com/	This is a sales site.			✘ No
https://www.miramax.com/movie/Tsotsi/		This is the film site which does not list the subject or mention him.		✘ No
https://www.shapeslewisham.co.uk/badraccoonmedia/		Business listing		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Added a source assessment chart McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first link appearsthat the website is currently on going maintanance, which most websites do, especially month end, i own and operate a website i know. Your assesment might be biased, because with The Sowetan link you need to sign up with them to be able to read their articles most news sources do that we all know that, so the assessment dont give enough clearity that you truly signed up to the news websites to be able to read full articles about the subject. The discussion should just continue despite the assessment you presented Zefu zungu (07:32 PM 29 July 2021) (CAT)

I did make an error on the Sowetan article I apologize there were 2 links in the reference I clicked on the first one not the second. I have updated the table to reflect the proper source which I did read the article. As for the first one I will check it again tomorrow however by looking at this site's homepage I don't think this will be considered reliable or help towards notability as it seems to be IMDb for music site. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The assessment does show GNG, and for a fact we know not all articles have ticked the assessment boxes. Be sure to subcribe to the news website next time to see reference for other articles and not only this one, it helps establish notability and inclusion.Zefu zungu (07:55 PM 30 July 2021) (Cat)

Comment This subject has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio stations, music and television networks. The subject also had his music placed into the metro FM, which is a national radio station in South Africa. So this shows that the subject fulfills the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO.

KayGSwat (12::48 PM 01 August 2021) (MP)

Keep Has been featured on the subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio station or TV networks. Meeting WP:MUSICBIO, on 14th July 2019 MetroFM, Held a 24 minute interview with Bmcabana SF, this would qualify as a substantial national broadcast featuring the subject of the article. KayGSwat 12:50 PM, 01 August 2021 (MP)— KayGSwat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - This is the second new user that have joined and posted straight away on this discussion. --John B123 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Comment to reply above comment The goal of the project permits, new users have the right to be treated with respect and civility, as long as they are aware that editors with more experience might display some sort of Scrutiny. Wikipedia community seeks to attract new and we'll informed users knowledgeable in a particular "SUBJECT". Wikipedia is not a platform for scrutiny.

The vote comment illustrates and demonstrates that the new user adheres to policy and standards, you can see why they signed their comments, this is encouraged in all cases. Good reasoning is always allowed for any user. Seems to me some editors are already accusing the user of a Single Purpose Account. Being a new user is not a reason for identifying a person as an SPA, especially when they sign their comments. Some well established users who edit articles and make comments on a variety of subjects do not have user pages. In addition even the most experienced editors occasionally forget to sign their comments, Scrutiny is not to be taken as a factor for this discussion. New accounts should not be how we assess competency. MukwevhoM (03:52 PM 01 August) (CAT)

Once again you are forging a signature please either log in to your account or stop forging signatures. Please read WP:SPA. This is a subject that is riddled with socks which means anything that is suspect of sockpuppetry will be flagged. Let me list some of the factors that have been identified as suspect so far forged signatures by ip editors, new accounts making their first edit ever in an AFD, several IP edits making similar edits with the same edit summaries and last but not least one user editing another's comments while claiming it was their own spelling mistakes. Nothing out of policy has happened here except your refusal to take off topic topics to the talk page and continued forgery of signatures. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can request a checkuser if you feel there is soccking, nobody has a problem with that, you even went to a point of coming to my user page with your personal issues, and went to a point of using the word "Crap" when addressing me on my talk page, you later reverted your comment and and deleted the history since you are an editor with that previlage, to make it a polite. you having been personal at the start and never trying to point out policy. i dont take you erious anymore after the words you used to address me on my talk page. I hope you get addressed for your abuse of power. Zefu zungu (04:55 PM 01 August 2021) (CAT)

I do not have the ability to delete anyone's contributions, even my own, I am not an administrator. I have never been personal, I may have referred to some edits as crap, which is within my rights, but it was on the content not the editor. I have provided the policies for you to read through and help you with the policies and you continue taking them as personal affronts instead of learning opportunities. I tried to to take topics to talk pages so it would be more private, you however wish to air them on this forum instead. I apologize if you feel offended by me calling out suspect and out of policy edits and behaviour but it is not personal. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have oppressed me for too long, i want to forgive you, because my relationship with you will not only benefit either parties but wikipedia as website, but i will only be able to that after this discussion has reached a consensus and closed. this typo of behaviour displays long waves of great violation to policy, since you found it justified is typing provacative words like "crap", you aught to resort to conflict, and then run to make a report and notice about another users actions against policy, i respect your level of experience on wikipedia, your years of activity explains it all, but i think even long serving editors should once in a while take time reading policy A-Z. Thank you Zefu zungu (05:06 PM 01 August 2021) (CAT)

By all means please let me know which policy I am in violation of. I have given you every policy that I think you or the others are in violation of so you can read and learn. So far you have only ever claimed I violated policy without citing which one so I could learn from my mistakes. I do make them and I don't know every policy on Wikipedia, as there so many. So please let me know which one I am violating so I can improve.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You dont need policy for the word "Crap", even a 3 year old baby knows best never to use the word, what about you editor.Zefu zungu (05:21 PM 01 August 2021) (CAT)

I see where the confusion is [8] this is the edit which I used the word crap to describe the off topic conversation, this was 100% about the content and not aimed at anyone in particular. That was not on your talk page but the talk page of this discussion. There was no need to clean it up it's still there and still on point. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Im not sure how the reliable sources provided is entirely undeserving, In actual fact, there isnt really any undeserving source in the article, except ones that talk about the course he took part in, that is to be recorded as a historical moment in South Africa, i did some finding on the internet about the subject, an the content of the article are pleasing. AFD is not an option right now Looking at the references, it appears to me to be just notable enouhg for inclusion. They are not fabulous, but they are there, he is a musician on the national and international stage, and the subject has recieved some quality press for their work, My research also showed that the subject is well known in South Africa in relation to hi musical career, thus Meets WP:MUSICBIO.Derela Khekhe (talk)(10:51 AM 02 August 2021) (UTC) — Derela Khekhe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The 2 sources which are considered reliable are minimal and not enough to prove anything about how this artist meets WP:MUSICBIO or why they are otherwise notable. One source is an interview more about a program he is a part of it does not say that he has actually been put into any rotation. The rest of all the sources don't even mention him, sales sites or are no more then a single line of text that only confirms they are a rapper. I have still seen no proof at all that allows anyone to verify that they have been placed into rotation on any national radio or music television station. Coming into a discussion like this and making claims that they meet so and so policy without providing any actual proof as per the WP:PROVEIT policy will often be discounted. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The number of sources has never been a concern, as long as the sources are reliable sources and have covered or feature the subject, there are many articles about subjects that have been included before with only 2 sources like Clement Maosa and Rahki, the article did meet criteria for inclusion with just only 2 sources, hence I argue that number of sources is not considered, as long as sources meet WP:RS,unless you make claims that RS publishes hoax. Your reasons are cold and irrelevant to the discussion. Zefu zungu (07::55 PM 02 August 2021) (CAT)

I would recommend reading through WP:GNG particularly sources. You will see I am arguing the quality and depth of the 2 reliable sources and I am saying they are not good enough to establish why the subject is notable. You will also find quantity of sources is a criteria especially if they are not of sufficient depth or quality. It may be good to also look through WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to point out that similar articles exists about subjects with only 1 or 2 sources since your arguement at the start was about number of sources. For a fact the sources on that article does prove notability and meet GNG, individually sources may not provide enough depth,as you mentioned,but the sources combined for a fact we find enough evidence that comes to light, that the subject is a musician in South Africa. This is supported by the following sources[9]p.6 newspaper [10]p.2 newspaper [11] including the The Sowetan link, they provide enough evidence to prove notability.all the sources does acknowledge the subject as a musician and pleases WP:MUSICBIO.Zefu zungu (04::55 PM 03 August 2021) (CAT)

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

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

The result was merge to Eric Weinstein. Daniel (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Portal (podcast)

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

The podcast does not pass WP:GNG. The host might pass, but the podcast does not WP:INHERIT notability from its hosts or guests. The only sources currently being cited that might be independent and reliable are the Essentially Sports article and the Brave New Coin article. However, neither source has more than a trivial mention of the podcast. Eric Weinstein has written for Big Think so any sources from that website are not independent. There are quite a few trivial mentions of the podcast such as these articles by Vice, The Hill, and The New York Times (none of these even dedicate a full sentence to the podcast) There is an WP:INTERVIEW source from Fox News, but that would be considered a primary source. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eric Weinstein. Agree that this doesn't inherit notability, though disagree about Big Think. Still, the article doesn't warrant a full article, just a redirect/merge with Weinstein. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 00:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eric Weinstein wrote five articles for Big Think in 2017, the Big Think article cited here was by a different author and in 2019 so it feels a bit pedantic to claim this isn't an independent source. I would also support a merge to Eric Weinstein as an alternative to deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. The sources from Essentially Sports, Brave New Coin, Fox News and Big Think (from a different author) are reliable enough and satisfy WP:THREE IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eric Weinstein. There's basically nothing to say about it except that it exists; the "Essentially Sports" item is a brief mention that's far from significant coverage, and "Brave New Coin" is yet another garbage crypto enthusiast site. The Fox News item is a primary source, as the nominator points out; moreover, it's in the area of politics and science, for which Fox is yellow-flagged. All that's left is Big Think... one of whose initial investors was Weinstein's employer, Peter Thiel. Even if we ignored the peculiarly entangled situation of that source, it's still only one source, an announcement of the podcast's launching that by its nature cannot demonstrate sustained interest in it. XOR'easter (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cergia David

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

Cergia did not compete due to failing a weigh in [12] and thus fails WP:NOLYMPICS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, no significant coverage in reliable sources, difficult to see how WP:GNG are satisfied. W C M_email 12:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above no significant coverage in reliable sources. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 16:27, 28 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) 20:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indrajeet Bose

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

This has been a redirect and repeatedly recreated by IPs with no references ever provided. A PROD was placed by promptly removed by an IP so I will bring it here. Fails WP:NBIO Notfrompedro (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article doesn’t have an AfD template on it for some reason. Mccapra (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- For some reason Twinkle put it on the article it was initially redirected to, Goyenda Ginni. I just caught it and fixed it. (Upon further investigation I think Onel5969 was reverting it back to a redirect at the same time I was preparing the AfD so Twinkle put it on the incorrect article.) Notfrompedro (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom -- DaxServer (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sources or references for notability. Pinakpani (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: K. Content can be merged, or the redirect re-targetted, by editors if desired. Clear consensus here to redirect the article. Daniel (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kylun

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage outside of trivial mentions in junk listicles. TTN (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: K, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DON'T PRESERVE. No evidence of any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that would justify this character having its own article. Avilich (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Excalibur (comics). Search term is reasonable, but no secondary sources are apparent. Charcter is briefly covered at redirect target, but a slightly fuller explanation might be better. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either of the targets proposed above (if pressed I'd prefer List of Marvel Comics characters: K), no evidence this meets WP:GNG, comic-type WP:FANCRUFT, plot summary only. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge Insufficient (which is to say no) independent reliable sourcing discussing this character or its significance in the abstract. Indeed, even the non-RS sourcing consists of just two links: what appears to have originally been an index page for various antiquated characters (which btw seems to be a deadlink at present that redirects to the main page for the publisher's website), and marginal more independent but still far from RS fan site character bio. Still, even if notability for an independent article fails, there may be a marginal WP:WEIGHT argument arguing for a smaller summary of the details currently in the article to be ported to articles on related narrative products and their plotlines: I leave that more nuanced call to editors with some experience with the niche subject matter here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Global Guardians. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Sun (character)

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

Topic fails WP:GNG. Doesn't seem to be any particular critical commentary on the characte. TTN (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with the founding members section of Global Guardians. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. No evidence for now of any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that would justify this character having its own article. Avilich (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Global Guardians. Character is covered in sufficient detail there, and is likely to be a reasonable search term. A quick google reveals no obvious sources so nothing to retain. Willing to reconsider if sources found. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Global Guardians, per Killer Moff - The article consists solely of plot information that is sourced only to primary sources, and that information is already covered in a much more succinct manner on the main Global Guardians article. I am finding no additional sources that would justify splitting this off into an individual character article. Rorshacma (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Global Guardians per above. Zackdasnicker (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Global Guardians. I thought there may be something about him out there due to possible controversy given his name, but nope, nothing, zero reception, he failed to either amuse or annoy people enough. Nothing to do here but redirect, standard comic WP:FANCRUFT, plot summary only. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 31 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) 18:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Olympians and Paralympians from Peel, Ontario

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

List of unclear value. I cannot find any indication that we have any standard practice of compiling dedicated lists of Olympic/Paralympic athletes from every individual city or county on earth where athletes might have come from, or any reason why Ontario's Peel Region would warrant special treatment that other individual counties aren't getting. We have numerous Category:Lists of Olympic competitors for Canada by discipline and/or medal status, and we have both List of people from Mississauga and List of people from Brampton to cover off people being from Peel, so there's no loss of context as these topics are each already covered on their own in other lists — but there's no particular reason why the intersection of Olympic competitors who have resided in Peel would be of any special encyclopedic significance in and of itself. There are, for example, no sources analyzing the intersection of the Olympics with Peel Region as a topic in its own right — so this can only be a "list of people who happen to be both X and Y", which is not the kind of list that adds value to an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The respective lists of people from each of the three cities are more than adequate, and an intersection of this sort is preposterous. Please no one else get ridiculous ideas that we need hypothetically tens of thousands of separate lists of A, B, C, D... occupations (or worse here, people who did a thing for a few days once) from (or born in, or later moved to) Z, Y, X, W... geographies. Reywas92^Talk 23:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.
- Not all Olympians or Paralympians have articles. If they don't qualify for an article, they aren't allowed on the list pages.
- If Peel was a province, it would be the fifth largest. If someone made a page for Olympians and Paralympians from Manitoba, would it be deleted.
- Bearcat, you ask why Peel should "warrant special treatment that other individual counties aren't getting"; I can't account for the editing practices of people with interest in other communities. They're welcome to contribute similar articles.
- Reywas92, you fear about other articles on the intersection of profession and geography. Such lists already exist, and are not manageable, whereas this is a finite number.
- Reywas92, "or worse here, people who did a thing for a few days once" That's absolutely insulting. Athletes spend decades preparing to do something "for a few days once."
Ultimately, this article is a finite, manageable, referenceable list. -- Zanimum (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter where Peel would rank if it were a thing it isn't. We judge topics by what they are in this reality, not by what they might be in a different reality than the one we live in.

No, people aren't welcome to contribute similar articles about other counties or regions, because there's absolutely no reason why Wikipedia would or should need or want thousands or millions of these to exist at the county level for every county or region or département or raion on earth. Wikipedia's job is not to just indiscriminately accept everything that one person thought was a "useful" contribution — even if this list is technically "finite, manageable and referenceable" on its own, the logical endpoint would be creating and maintaining a similar list for every other Peel-equivalent entity on earth, which would not be even remotely sustainable or desirable at all — so the question of why Peel should get special treatment still stands, and you haven't dropped the mic on it. Bearcat (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not insulting, it's a fact. While your WP:OSE point has suggested another article I could see deleting as well, I would distinguish between a list of people of a particular occupation (as many articles like List of people from Kentucky are organized) and those within occupations who did a particular high-level activity (e.g. not a list of Italian-Americans with Oscar nominations). This is a subset of a subset of a subset of people that is indiscriminate when at the localized level. Reywas92^Talk 20:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reason for this intersection. A page for Olympians and Paralympians from Manitoba would presumably also be deleted. (Also, "from" including those who have "trained in or competed in" the region? Yikes.) -- Jonel (Speak to me) 12:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Jonel, etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:LISTN I do not see what would make this specific 'list of x of y' grouping notable enough to keep this article, it also includes people who trained or competed in the region or were accepted into the local hall of fame, making this list nonspecific and of little value. Most search results for this topic go back to this wikipedia article. Mousymouse (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 10:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though if someone can find a few examples of reliable and significant coverage of this particular subgroup of Olympic athletes I would reconsider BilledMammal (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, there already are lists of people from Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon. There is no reason to have an additional similar page, but for only a specific profession. Those three pages could be changed to be sorted into professions instead of by name, if you really want to point out sports people from that area. But this page is entirely unnecessary. I do also want to mention that "people who did a thing for a few days once" is indeed an insulting way to talk about Olympic athletes. Kaffe42 (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The most persuasive argument in the discussion below is that this fails GNG, and combined with the facts that the argument had significant support and it was not adequately refuted, I assess there to be a consensus to delete. Daniel (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dauntless: The Battle of Midway

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

Non-notable film, none of the sources included in the article refer to the film, they are simply sourcing content about the film (they all predate the film's production), this film is lacking significant coverage by independent sources as needed for a stand alone article, per WP:NF and WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 17:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A fully developed film article centered upon the key maritime battle of World War II. It has an extensive infobox, an informative introductory paragraph, detailed plot synopsis, a full cast that includes two well-known actors, Judd Nelson and C. Thomas Howell, production details, notes, inline cites, bibliography and four external links. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And once again, your Keep argument does not actually address the issue here, the film has no significant coverage. None of the citations refer to the film, they refer to the battle. The notability of the subject of the film and the notability of the cast does not determine the notability of the film. Please review WP:NINI. BOVINEBOY2008 20:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Four external links, a bibliography and three citations all from sources that predate this 2019 film. Roman Spinner have you located any coverage which actually addresses the subject of the article, which is a 2019 film? Nobody is arguing with you about the notability of the battle that it is based on. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article creator appears to have misunderstood what kind of sources are needed for a Wikipedia article about a movie. Not one of the citations or external links here actually refers to the film. (Even if a link to the film's IMDb page were added to this article, that would hardly be enough to establish notability; see WP:NFSOURCES.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Nothing found on my search supports notability. Kolma8 (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - reviews do exist but I'm not sure about where the community stands with the reliability of these sources; Chicago Reader, Naval Air History and That Moment In Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The Naval Air History is a blog review, which we should really avoid blogs in general as citations. The first unusual; the source is a good source but the review is written by someone who only has one listed review and I cannot find anything else they have written. I don't think we can consider this a published review. The last is one that I found as well during my initial search, but the source does not seem to be one that is widely-recognized as a review source, which is something that WP:NFO includes when considering reviews as a sign of coverage. BOVINEBOY2008 13:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Chicago Reader "review" appears to be a social media-type posting rather than a proper review by a critic from the publication. Note that even though the posting is apparently referring to this film, the film's title is never mentioned on that page, nor are any actors or crew members identified, which would be odd for a real movie review. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've tried my best to find reviews as per the three that I have shared above but I have to agree with Bovine Boy's analysis of them. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From my research, director and screenwriter Mike Phillips has a close connection to one of the figures in the film, Ensign Thomas Ramsay [13]. The film is also a tribute to the real-life heroes, Captain Norman Vandivier and Ensign Lee Keaney who participated in the battle of Midway. Despite budgetary concerns, an effort to faithfully depict capital ships, naval aircraft and historical figures from the period was, at least from a CGI application, more realistically depicted than the ham-handed effort in Pearl Harbor (2001). After action reports from participants in the battle, Lt Richard H. Best, Lt. Earl Gallher, Captain George Murray and Admiral R.A. Spruance elevates the film from the "psuedo" account in Midway (1976). In order to get a reading on whether the film was accurate from a historical perspective, I asked for it to be screened by Ryan Toews, an acknowledged expert on the period, especially the Mitsubishi A6m Zero fighters that are prominently seen in the film. Although there are minor errors in aircraft colour schemes and markings, the film held up remarkably well. One of the dilemmas of establishing a film's notability during the current pandemic was that a low-budget film such as "Dauntless: The Battle of Midway" would have likely been destined for a limited theatrical release but was forced into distribution only into the home media market. Since the article was developed, a critical review has appeared by Editor/Writer David Duprey [14]. The historical accuracy of the story and that the film had garnered over 80 viewer reviews on IMDb as well as from critics has to be considered. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 1 August 2021
- According to this article and IMDb, this film was released in the USA on 6 September 2019, two months before the first COVID-19 outbreak anywhere in the world. Hence, the pandemic could not have prevented this film from receiving a theatrical release on that date. Whether that 6 September 2019 release took place in theaters, streaming, or direct to DVD has not been clearly explained yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - Regardless, the film would have had to overcome some major financial barriers to go into the "traditional" theatrical release. As stated above, there are redeeming aspects to a small, independent film that featured "name" stars and had a story to tell. Have any of the naysayers actually seen the film and compared it to films such as "Midway" (1976), a film that is generally considered a "good" war film, but engendered an entire critique on its inaccuracies and "flubs" which I documented in an article for another publication. Compare the two and "Dauntless: The Battle of Midway" swings "above its weight". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 2 August 2021
    - Remember, this is not an assessment of the quality of the film, it is an assessment of its notability. Per WP:GNG, we establish notability through the evidence of significant coverage by independent sources. This is the standard you should be showing. So far, we have one online review that could be considered coverage by an independent source (although one could argue that since the website is pretty new and not widely sourced, it may not be significant). BOVINEBOY2008 15:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Mohammad Mohammad Yazji

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

Several failed speedies, and I anticipate this wouldn't make it through PROD, so bringing it here for discussion. I am unable to find evidence that Yazji is notable for what put him on the Saudis' list, and of course the list itself does not confer notability. We could redirect to the list, but if he's not notable, that doesn't seem helpful for the user. I don't read Arabic, which is an issue, but without suitable information to expand this, this isn't helping the reader. Star Mississippi 16:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: to my mind, a redirect is better than a redlink regardless of whether the subject is notable. Can you clarify/expand on why you disagree with redirection? VQuakr (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @VQuakr: I am unable to find reliable source coverage so I would think it's a BLP issue, among other challenges? There are a lot of mirrors and unreliable sources, and we really need an Arabic speaker. If we can solve to those, a redirect might not be a bad option. Star Mississippi 16:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so essentially saying that without sigcov we are in violation of WP:BLPCRIME? VQuakr (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that way to me, but that's more opinion than official guideline. Also we have no indication of why he's on that list. Without that, what does noting that he was (still is? Also unclear) on the list tell the reader. Star Mississippi 18:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourcing meeting WP:BASIC can be found in non-English references. I agree per the discussion above that the existing list source isn't adequate to keep a redirect to an article with "terrorist" in the title, per WP:BLPCRIME. VQuakr (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a pretty egregious BLPCRIME violation. Under no circumstances should there ever be a one-sentence, one-source article describing a living person as a terrorist (even with in-text attribution), even if that person has been convicted, let alone if they haven't. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northgas

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

Not notable enough: do not pass WP:GNG, WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH. Япіб-12 (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article seems to be adequately referenced. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources about the company even in this article to easily pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Beagel (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reuters is a good source. The Wiley research article only confirms the company ranking. There are too many links to ICIS Heren. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What to you mean by "there are too many links to ICIS Heren"? Do you imply that ICIS is not reliable source? Because the fact how many times the certain source is used does not change its reliability. Beagel (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that there are 3 links to ICIS Heren. In my opinion that's too many. It's not a news agency, but a commercial company. There is no author. Therefore, placing so many links to this company can be promotional. I'm not saying that they are not reliable. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ICIS is a company publishing business-related information. It is a part of LexisNexis. Two articles out of three have authors included. I don't understand the claim, that it is a not news agency, but a commercial company. Most of news agencies are commercial companies. E.g. in the case of Thomson Reuters, most of its revenue comes from Financial & Risk division, not from the Reuters News. Does that mean that we should not use Reuters just to avoid to be "promotional"? Beagel (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 articles out of 3 don't have author, not one. That's not a good sign. Another bad sign is that almost every other phrase in the "about" section is stating how reliable and transparent they are. Comparing this to Reuters doesn't make sense. Reuters is a well known widely cited news agency. They are explicitly stated as a RS in WP:RSP. This other source is not a news agency. They position themselves as a business information provider in a specific sector. Citing such sources multiple times is suspicious. That's my opinion. Regarding the subject, I voted to keep it because it is notable. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the source is described as a news agency has nothing to do if the source is reliable or not. There are also news agencies which in general are not reliable sources, at least in certain topics. And being a business information provider in a specific sector does not make the source unreliable. So this argument is totally irrelevant. Beagel (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article improved significantly by Beagel since nomination. Now passes WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 19:26, 31 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Chhabra

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

Autobiography about a working, but not notable, actor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant roles in multiple notable projects. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of meeting NACTOR or GNG. Ab207 (talk) 17:35, 30 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 03:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nutan Comics

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

Unsourced for a decade. Google searches not finding many hits. Nothing to back up unsourced claim of being a pioneer. noq (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non notable company. If anything, the merely passing mentions of Nutan Comics in sources like A Brief History of Hindi Comics in India and The Prospects of Comics in India demonstrate its lack of significance. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 27 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 03:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Roberts (model)

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

Current sourcing consists of primary promotional pieces, articles not about the article's subject, and brief mentions. Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage of this model. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. A BEFORE doesn't bring up anything convincing either. JBchrch talk 08:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining my vote despite the new sources added. JBchrch talk 20:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Updated the page with more sources I could find online. Kaihsnual (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the added sources, he falls some way short of established notability Dexxtrall (talk) 15:12, 31 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 as this has already been boldly redirected. In this situation, the redirect was taken as an editorial decision, and unless someone wants to challenge the validity of doing so from a content perspective, nothing more for AfD to do here. Daniel (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keken clan

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

None of the sources in the article (original or current) mention the "Keken", and I can only find a few unreliable sources for the term. It seems to be just a different spelling for the Kaikan, hence my redirect to Kingdom of Kaikan earlier. As this gets contested, I thought it best to bring this to AfD. If this is not the same as the Kaikan, then good sources need to be presented or it should be deleted. Fram (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kingdom of Kaikan. I've noticed this user 2402:8100:2184:85AC:0:0:A83:4258 has already redirected keken clan to Kingdom of Kaikan, which I think isn't policy backed due to ongoing AfD. I'm not 100% sure about any of such policy, so I didn't revert his redirect. I would request any senior editor to have a look over here. Thank you. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Boneparte

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

Possibly fails WP:GNG and, to my knowledge, referees do not gain automatic notability just for officiating in a professional match. This is at least the rule in football. A South African search comes up with some coverage but it's almost all just passing mentions about games that he assisted with Rugby365, SA Rugby Mag and News24. Does not meet the WP:BASIC element of WP:BIO. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete We tend to go with someone who's officiated a top level competition as being notable as a rule of thumb. Boneparte refereed a few Currie Cup matches, but probably not enough for automatic notability. As nom says, lots of passing mentions, but not enough for a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 27 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. Sandstein 14:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher P. Burke

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

No indication of notability. This article (previously created/deleted under the title "Christopher Patrick Burke") is one of a series of articles of almost everyone in the Burke family (as previously consolidated in the now-deleted Burkes of Duleek Street entry). While WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and WP:NOTINHERITED issues are broadly evident, in terms of the specific notability guidelines, the main claims to notability here seem to be that the subject:

was involved in the GAA. While there is no specific guideline for administrators in the GAA, a series of recent AfD's have confirmed a general consensus that being an administrator (at club or even county level) doesn't confer notability. WP:NGAELIC is otherwise not met. At all.
was a good dancer. And won one amateur competition. While there is no specific guideline for Irish dancers, WP:ENTERTAINER is not met.
was involved in a local debating society and "Commercial Reading Rooms". Which don't contribute to notability.
had a well attended funeral. Which, while perhaps indicative of some regard locally (and/or perhaps representative of the subject's death at a relatively young age), doesn't contribute to WP:ANYBIO.

That we are relying on obituaries and two passing mentions raises significant WP:GNG concerns. A WP:BEFORE search returns next to no additional sources. Guliolopez (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence at all of any notability. Only reason for creation is being an ancestor of the article creator, who seems to think all his ancestors deserve Wikipedia articles. Spleodrach (talk) 14:51, 27 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. This is one of the rare cases where I must overrule all "keep" opinions because they are unsubstantiated or contrary to policy. The issue is notability, which requires reliable third-party sources. Some "keep" opinions assert that such sources are cited, but they do not establish why the three existing sources meet our requirements, and they clearly do not. [15] is a user-edited site where people can upload their own film descriptions, [16] is a CV which is not about the film, and [17] gives a 404 error. The other "keep" opinions argue that the topic is "valuable" or that the article's creators are probably "knowledgeable", but these are not arguments with which one can substitute missing sources per WP:GNG. Sandstein 12:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Au-délà de Cap-Noir

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

Non notable film with nothing to support it having its own article. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help this pass WP:NFILM. One possible review, but 2 are the bare minimum. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFILM. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 01:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even a search to find sources did not turn up any possible sources, therefore almost certainly failing to be notable. — CVValue (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two active inline cites appended to this entry confirm that, although additional links would be helpful, this documentary represents a valuable ethnographic record. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references look like they need some work, but this isn't a reason for deletion. Our concern is notability. Observe (per the article's talk page) that this page was created as part of the Share Your Knowledge project, and was created or expanded by African Film Festival of Cordoba. Given the circumstances, and the presumption that the creators of the article are probably more knowledgeable about this subject than I am, I'm prepared to give this article the benefit of the doubt. RomanSpa (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG with enough significant coverage available. Zackdasnicker (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources available to justify notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sonamoo. Sandstein 12:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deja Vu (Sonamoo EP)

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

Sonamoo's EP, Deja Vu, should be deleted due to no sources. I don't see any sources. A2013a (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Remember to do WP:BEFORE. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Man, Asians are facing a lotta shit: Model minority stereotypes, racist stereotypes in entertainment, un-warranted phobias that they may be spreading a deadly virus, and Kpop groups getting number one on the Goan chart and never be reviewed by HQ reliable sources. I don't know the reliability of any of these sources, so if someone can confirm Seoulbeats, Kultscene, Allkpop, and Kpop Starz are reliable sources, I will vote Keep. Otherwise, merge to artist article. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HumanxAnthro, see WP:KO/RS#UR. The general consensus is that all of these are unreliable being either gossip sites or fan blogs, and are generally avoided in Korean music articles. Ashleyyoursmile (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, merge to artist article, then. The album was number-one on the Goan chart, but that alone isn't enough to make the article longer than stub-length. Every kpop act usually has works that only appear on the Korean charts, with the exception of BTS of course, and peak positions can just easily be listed in a discography article or section. Also, awesome username, Ashley. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sonamoo. Unfortunately does not appear to have enough coverage to warrant a standalone article, despite meeting WP:NALBUM which says Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sonamoo per above. Zackdasnicker (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sonamoo#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. Nothing worth merging since its chart info is already in the discography. SBKSPP (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this charted at #1? I think it's likely there are more sources that exist, just not in English. This is kinda the point of SNGs and reasonably-so in this case. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Savi Technology

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

Not finding coverage to establish notability. The source used to save this from deletion in 2004 isn't enough. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete company lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added some additional sourcing that meets WP:GNG in addition to the Washington Post article. FiddleheadLady (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this barely passes the threshold for notability per use of independent sources. The Washington Post article helped. However, Bloomberg is just routine business information. But it is useful for information only. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While the current publications are good, I don't think it is still enough to meet notability requirements for corporations. However, I believe that additional sources for the company might be found. Still, it look too early to me. --Chartwind (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Barely passed notability thanks to added sourcing.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rangaraj Pandey

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:JOURNALIST and WP:NACTOR. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. SUN EYE 1 18:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SUN EYE 1 18:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SUN EYE 1 18:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. SUN EYE 1 18:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SUN EYE 1 18:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SUN EYE 1 18:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. SUN EYE 1 18:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SUN EYE 1 18:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 16:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject's notability is confirmed by the seven inline cites in his English Wikipedia entry as well as corresponding entries in Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia and Tamil Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The International Business Times, Hindustan Times and the India Today sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, IndiaGlitz.com is not a very reliable source and two sources are from Youtube. I could not find any other sources with WP:SIGCOV.SUN EYE 1 05:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 10:32, 27 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 03:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Santner

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

Non-notable filmmaker. PepperBeast (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unreferenced BLP, which is a violation of policy. When I search for coverage in reliable sources, I find social media and self-promotional stuff, plus a passing mention in a book about filmmaking in Austria. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. As someone who has a badass word like "Wolfgang" as their middle name, I'm sad to say that the best coverage I got were passing mentions in a book about Austrian films, and two tabloid articles about a vacation Kim Kardashian took, both of which I found in a GNEWS search. The book source weakens the strength of my Delete !vote, but only so much. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CosmicNotes (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC) I agree with both previous votes delete votes, however I think it is important to comment this person is Hungarian, where the main language is not English, it would be best for someone fluent in Hungarian to conduct a search. While not notable in and of itself, the person hosted some of the top celebrities from the US when they visited his home country, suggesting he may be well known in his field there. CosmicNotes (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' Teammates

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

Doubtful notability. PepperBeast (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A BEFORE does not bring up any significant coverage. JBchrch talk 22:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lil' Teamates, Lil' coverage. It seems anything has bad luck when it is Lil'. There's a Lil' bit of coverage in the Morning Journal citation, but that's not enough to pass WP:GNG. Other stuff I found were a few PR pieces, and that's it. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:28, 27 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. Sandstein 12:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeete Nsem

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

Someone with a clearer understanding of Ghana-related sources could potentially have a clearer say, but I'm somewhat unconvinced that the quality and reliability of the sources present attest to this rap show's notability. nearlyevil 665 10:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors should kindly refer to this to confirm notability. Thanks --Jibodi (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 10:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 10:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don’t think the show is notable. It’s only mentioned in some reliable sources (which aren’t in-depth). Doesn’t meet WP:GNG -Xclusivzik (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 10:29, 27 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 12:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramcharan Bharali

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

Notability rests on non-notable award. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Not been update per Heymann standard in last Afd. scope_creep^Talk 10:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Where will our next generation read if we don't have an article of a renowned folk artist of local heritage and forgotten folk culture? There are enough references, and the contents are solely based on the sources. Please translate and read this article - Biography of Ramcharan Bharali on Vikaspedia. Nalbarian (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You voted keep the lasd time but you offered no evidence that the guy is notable. I plan to post a note up a Wikiproject to get a better look at it. scope_creep^Talk 10:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more contents with online references now. May have a lot of coverage in the offline (print) media. Nalbarian (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Emin Toprak (businessman)

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

The claims to notability in the article are very weak. A search for "mehmet emin toprak" "democrats abroad" yielded 82 hits of Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. The yacht club he founded are already heading for deletion. Geschichte (talk) 09:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:22, 27 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. Whatever DilJco was trying to say was disregarded because it is incomprehensible. Sandstein 12:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amila Chinthana Karunanayake

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

Fails WP:NACTOR only minor roles in films. Okaye Agongo (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Okaye Agongo (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. SirEd ^Dimmi!!! 11:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails aspects of biographical articles and WP:ANYBIO. When I searched, I saw bulk of speedy deletions and deletion nominations done for this creator. As well as he has blocked at least two times after several warnings. But he is continuously doing the same thing. Don't know the reason. Gihan Jayaweera^Talk 18:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Gihan Jayaweera

(A) APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. YOU WANT ME TO BE BANNED FOR LIFE OFF WIKIPEDIA (THANK YOU). I TOO HAVE SEARCHED AND FOUND MANY ARTICLES ON WIKIPEDIA THAT ARE VERY POORLY REFERENCED BUT STANDS CLEAN WITH OUT ANY INTERFERENCES/SUGGESTIONS FOR DELETION, FROM THE ADMINISTRATORS/SENIOR CREATORS.Example: Damith Wijayathunga References given:

(1) RESULT - THIS REFERENCE IS A blogspot

(2) RESULT - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CAN BE FOUND REGARDING SUBJECT

(5) RESULT - BARELY SAYS: Completing higher studies as a student, while working on some commercials and modelling shows. Successfully completed a Computer Science degree from NSBM. "I got to know about this from Mr. Brian Kerkoven. I've grown more confident and just applied to do my best."

(6) RESULT - Hmm. We’re having trouble finding that site

(7) Nothing found RESULT - Apologies, but no entries were found

OUT OF SEVEN REFERENCES FOR ABOVE BIOGRAPHICAL ARTICLE ONLY 2 (3 AND 4) GIVE REPUTABLE INFORMATION. STILL IT STANDS CLEAN

(B) ALSO ON ANOTHER NOTE:

(1) I currently lives in Matale, - CORRECT GRAMMAR: I currently LIVE in Matale.

(2) I am a B.Sc. graduate of Faculty of Natural Sciences in Open University of Sri Lanka, and currently studies M.Sc CORRECT GRAMMAR: I am a B.Sc. graduate of Faculty of Natural Sciences in Open University of Sri Lanka, and currently STUDY M.Sc DilJco (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a place to debate. It is about the article you created. I never told to ban you for lifetime. You misunderstood. I am very happy to see that you are going to correct my grammar. Cheers for that. You just think, when most of your articles have been deleted, so YOU should take precautions to correct them in the next article. But you are just making and making and making. But no progress. Check my comment above. Nothing about a ban. So, do not get angry with me by finding my errors in Wikipedia. If you need a help to create article, then it is ok. Keep finding my errors and grammar. Cheers. Thank You... GihanJayaweera^TALK 17:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is a debate or other wise, I standby my comments (unbiased - true facts). What is wrong with the article that I created Amila Chinthana Karunanayake?. If that is the case Damith Wijayathunga article is no way near above and it has to be nominated for DELETION in my opinion. There is no need of word by word referencing, else the article it self will be a soup (common sense). Few of my articles have been DELETED (I was surprised when my article Mahela-Sanga Trophy was deleted. Cricketing nations of the world know who Mahela Jayawardene and Kumar Sangakkara are. Mahela was educated at Nalanda College, Colombo and Kamar from Trinity College, Kandy. Since 2019, the annual cricket encounter between Nalanda and Trinity is played for Mahela-Sanga Trophy as a mark of respect for those two cricketers) upon a handful of creators opinion (I did not want to compete). I am not angree with any one, in fact I was very thankful of you and appreciative. I ended up in your back yard while researching how smart those DELETION PROPOSERS are, and YES I found serious grammatical errors (I LIVES, I STUDIES). I again standby on my comment. I invite any creator on wikipedia to come to the party and show their state of being superior on this issue.DilJco (talk) 16:44, 29 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) Ambrosiawater (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Cartee

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

Fails WP:GNG lacks news coverage Okaye Agongo (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Okaye Agongo (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was evaluating this myself with an eye for deletion as this nomination came in. He has done sound engineering for notable artists and has his won releases (or mixes). However, it does not appears these independent releases have achieved significant success with coverage being mostly non-independent PR. Coverage overall on Cartee himself is lacking in quantity and depth for GNG.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NMUSIC, has produced and mixed recordings for notable artists. Jaysonsands (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jaysonsands, WP:NMUSIC does not have a stated criteria conferring notability in these circumstances (does not in fact address audio or sound engineers at all) and furthermore it does not supersede WP:GNG which is not met here.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Eostrix He qualifies WP:MUSIC criteria not sure about GNG though. Also digging more deep I see he produced many notable songs like Project E.T. which surely qualifies him for WP:MUSICBIO. Jaysonsands (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being credited as one of the producers or sound engineers does not count towards WP:MUSICBIO as it applies to "bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists" - performers, not producers, audio engineers, promoters, or other production/promotion work. His own songs would qualify, but his own work is not notable (and is less significant than his production work).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree with you on some. However, He qualifies WP:MUSIC Criteria #10 Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. Jaysonsands (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above, passes WP:MUSIC for his notable work in media and recordings. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per WP:MUSICBIO criteria. Zackdasnicker (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, passes WP:MUSIC for his notable work in audio engineering and production. Reviewguru (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, presumably per G5, by User:Materialscientist. (non-admin closure) --MuZemike 16:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ESTALMAT

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

Fails GNG lacks news coverage. Okaye Agongo (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Okaye Agongo (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a program in Spain for the mathematically gifted that has been running for over 20 years. I linked it to two other language Wikipedia articles now ([18][19]). This program has received significant coverage, such as: profile in El Mundo from 2018, profile in El País from 2017, and Socio-Emotional Development and Creativity of Gifted Students, pages 102-? for example.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Above sources presented by User:Eostrix seems fine at first glance but I will hold my vote untill a little futher digging. Jaysonsands (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The El Pais and El Mundo sources look very good. Searching Google Scholar for intitle:estalmat finds plenty of additional sourcing, e.g. [20]. There appear to be three entire published books of activities from this project. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 27 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) Ambrosiawater (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hangad

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

Fails WP:GNG. Loads of big names mentioned by the notability stays unclear. The Banner talk 07:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well-known vocal ensemble that has been performing for 30 years and has a number of recordings and music videos. The article has existed for nearly 15 years (since October 20. 2006), when Hangad won the Awit Award for Best Inspirational or Religious Song. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above, has recieved notable awards for his work on recordings and music videos. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found some reliable sources which talk about the band, its music and awards: [21], [22], [23], [24] and [25]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:BAND. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 03:43, 31 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) Ambrosiawater (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COMO Hotels and Resorts

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

Previously deleted multiple times check log. Again a blatant advertisement, comes under G11 but i need more editor's attention on it. For me it seems a UDP or COI case. GermanKity (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GermanKity, thank you for the discussion. I have elected to write the article to expand on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hotels in line with the project's goals 1 and 2. I have written the article as objectively as possible, in a neutral point of view. As such, I struggle to see how the article qualifies as a blatant advertisement under G11 as I do not find any language that was written openly in a manner that appears promotional or advertisement-like. The subject, COMO Hotels and Resorts is a notable multinational company operating multiple hotels - something that I believe would be useful to be a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hotels. Nearly all (bar one) of the cited sources are independent of the company; most come from articles featured in major magazines like Forbes, which I believe would suggest the subject qualifying for Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines. I assume on good faith in the review, but I do request a re-reviews on the page, verifying the page's objectivity and its value as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hotels. Additionally, on the claim of possible COI, I will state that I do not have any ties to the company or anyone related to the company in question. I am an editor interested in hotels and hospitality, and I hope this can be reflected through the contributions I've made in the past mostly related to hotels and hospitality. Keep Okadiputera (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles by Forbes contributors are not necessarily independent, but there are enough good references from reliable sources to establish notability. I don't think the article is an advertisement. Unless something goes spectacularly wrong at a luxury hotel, media coverage is likely to be predominantly favourable, and we can't use bad reviews on TripAdvisor as a reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with rewrite to remove a couple of instances of puffery and lots of overlinking. Cites enough sources in my view. Contribution history of page creator seems legit, i.e. not a single-purpose account. (Como The Treasury hotel in Western Australia is arguably notable enough in its own right as it got plenty of media coverage locally when it opened.) Meticulo (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as far as G11 is concerned. Further debate on the subject's notability may warranted, but that hasn't been directly questioned by the nominator. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BUT it does need a bit of a prune. Aoziwe (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to New Zealand Air Training Corps. Which should be pruned of excess detail... Sandstein 12:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Air Training Corps Association of New Zealand

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

apparently no thirdparty sources, nor would I expect there to be any DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails ORGSIG, ORGCRITE, SIRS. No independent coverage in acceptable sources. Only available sources are primary. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to New Zealand Air Training Corps - there are plenty of reasons for an organisation like this to have received coverage. In effect, it is to the New Zealand Air Training Corps as the National Guard Association of the United States is to the National Guard (United States). That said, coverage of the organisation itself seems very thin. I can't think of a policy that would result in it being notable by virtue of its place within an official national military structure. I don't think it serves Wikipedia's purpose to delete an article about an association that clearly exists and has the function it purports to have. People researching the topic would likely benefit from it being here. But "it serves our primary purpose as editors of a public encyclopedia" isn't (ironically) a reason to keep an article. The article into which we would merge it is large and detailed (which seems a reasonable justification for spinning this article off from it), but it is what it is. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps that merge would be more acceptable if some of. the excess detail in the target article were decreased. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Otherwise it just becomes an obvious spin-off opportunity and we'll be back here before we know it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge Agree with all above, non notable on its own, but deserves more than a mention on its merge page. There is a lot I would like to strip from New Zealand Air Training Corps but the page was made with love and it might be best if it was reduced with equal affection for the topic. Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Haltof

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

Zero notability. No coverage of him to speak of. He fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics), not meeting any of the criteria listed. His publications have received little attention, only seven of his publications have more than ten citations, and his h-index is only eight. Mazhat (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close This account has zero edit, hence has no say for deletion. Sock-puppets are unwelcome, too. Lembit Staan (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I created this bio exaclty because his books are frequently cited. He has over 100 citations in wikipedia. Lembit Staan (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because someone spammed him on Wikipedia does not make him notable. He has almost zero academic impact, as seen by his paltry citation record.Mazhat (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thats ignorant bullsit and trolling. His books receive excellent reviews and awards . Lembit Staan (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is his impact as seen on academic indexes. If by awards you mean the PIASA award you just stuffed into the article [26], then PIASA (The Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences of America [27]) is not really selective it awards just about any book written on Poland in English and published in America. It's the sort of award you can buy coffee with at Starbucks if you add a few dollars. Mazhat (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Describing PIASA as what it is, an organization that awards niche ethnic Polish scholarship in America, is not Polonophobic. A PIASA award means nothing. Mazhat (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lembit Staan. Subject is highly respected author of numerous books and his entry has nine inline cites. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I easily ramped up the number of refs to 13, into his face. Lembit Staan (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep it seems the one spamming and not understanding our policies is Mazhat, especially failing with WP:BEFORE. The subject passes both WP:NPROF#1 with books > 100 citations and WP:NAUTHOR author with multiple independent reviews in reputable places: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] etc. --hroest 14:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per NAUTHOR. JoelleJay (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all above passes NPROF and NAUTHOR clearly. Slovenichibo (talk) 09:13, 30 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. I think after 3 weeks and 2 relists, another relist is not likely to find a clearer consensus. There is a stronger keep preference but not solid enough that it could be considered indisputable. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berkay Çatak

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

Other than simply participating in the 2019 Google Science Fair, not nearly enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Was deprodded with the simple addition of a youtube link. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, ignoring the YouTube link, which I have now removed, there is enough coverage here to pass WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep, I think the resources are more than enough. --𝘋𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘴 ϟ ^Heyyo? 07:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - all of the in-depth coverage is about his participation in the Google Science Fair, so WP:BIO1E would apply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~, Meets the notability criteria. There are many news on the person. An encyclopedic content was created with the resources provided. --𝘋𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘴 ϟ ^Heyyo? 09:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC) Strike duplicate !vote. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most sources are copying what he says (aka primary sources) or are about Gören Duyan, which is notable. "Kimdir?" sources do not contribute to notability, and Kısavoz isn't reliable anyways. This only leaves the Hürriyet source of him going to the Google Science Fair, which alone isn't enough, thus the person doesn't pass GNG. ~Styyxie^{Talk? ^-^} 13:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep it's hard to tell for sure as all the sources I find are in Turkish and on platforms I am not familiar with, but it looks like there is enough coverage. Even if all the coverage is also about Gören Duyan, that could be enough. Both this article and Gören Duyan are stubs; some form of merge might be possible. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* I think the resources are sufficient. These are very different issues, I don't agree with their merging. For the Berkay Çatak page, we should wait for knowledgeable people to add content.--𝘋𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘴 ϟ ^Heyyo? 16:45, 31 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) 03:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rani (Dutch singer)

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

nn singer. Don't let two dozen footnotes fool you Lembit Staan (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this, she has millions of monthly listeners on Spotify, and has received significant attention like in [34] and [35]. Mazhat (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I could find sufficient sources for the WP:GNG: [36][37][38][39][40][41]. Her most famous song was accolated by Buma/Stemra as a top 5 international leader of its year. gidonb (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per WP:MUSICBIO criteria #2 (had a song that charted nationally in multiple countries) and #3 (had a song that is certified gold or above in Canada, UK, and Australia). Niftysquirrel (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, passes WP:MUSIC for his notable work in music industry. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
INeedToFlyForever, It's a her. Euro know (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (Southeast Asia)

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

At best sources are passing mentions of this topic. Fails GNG, and NFILM. According to NPP this page was previously deleted. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and for the exact same reasons laid out in the previous AfD. We do not need regional programming lists for large television networks, they are all acquired programmming and only serve as content forks. Ajf773 (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt — this page was deleted in the 3rd AfD and, much later, speedy deleted per G4. Quite frankly, this version might meet G4 as well. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the nom I agree this article space should be salted after going to AfD four times. Enough is enough. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:26, 28 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. RL0919 (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Fishman

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

Fails BASIC, ANYBIO, and ENTERTAINER. Lacks independent sources and heavily relies on primary sources. Most sources are EP's and songs. There is at least one commercial. WP:REFBOMB consisting of 40 unacceptable sources for notability. The page seems intended to function as a music directory, while ignoring criteria for inclusion (WP:NOTDIRECTORY). According to NPP this page was previously deleted. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 27 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. RL0919 (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramen Arashi

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

Fails GNG. Some mentions in news, including sites dedicated to food news, which smells like WP:ROUTINE. The news centers on what to eat, and its reliability is questionable. Wikinights (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Wikinights (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Wikinights (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Wikinights (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikinights (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Lacks significant coverage to support notability. Jaysonsands (talk) 10:13, 27 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. RL0919 (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bite Me, Fanboy

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 01:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 13:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass WP:NFILMS and WP:GNG. Google search turned up no reliable independent sources that show significant coverage on the film. Given the lack of coverage, the film does not appear to be notable to have a stand-alone article. --Ashleyyoursmile (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim Dov Rabinowitz

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

I found no significant coverage. The article is unreferenced, but not as a BLP because the subject died in 2001. SL93 (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - He meets the criteria for Notability (academics) because his scholarly books are well respected. The article certainly needs work and more references but it should be fixed instead of deleted.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above meets WP:NACADEMICS. Although, article needs further improvements though. Jaysonsands (talk) 10:14, 27 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 Drake & Josh#Online videos. Daniel (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Walter

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

This article fails the guideline for web notability. As it was something that the cast of Drake and Josh did alongside other Nickelodeon stars years ago. But thinking a redirect to the main article for Drake and Josh would be best for this article, if not go through with the deletion process. Pahiy (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Drake_&_Josh#Online_videos - the current article is purely sourced to the material itself. There is some coverage [42] but editorially I don't see enough for a separate article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like most 'web extensions' of TV series in the 2000s, only 5-10% really cared about them as they did nothing to change the plot of the actual series. Complete fan detail, only sourced to WP:YOUTUBE, there's not much beyond this. Nate • (chatter) 01:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Drake & Josh#Online videos: Not much coverage aside from the source indicated by User:力. There's nothing to merge since it's briefly discussed in the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Drake & Josh#Online videos - Its certainly a plausible search term and shouldn't be deleted, but the section in the main Drake & Josh article is a sufficient amount of coverage based on the sources available. As the only content in this article is plot information sourced only to the show itself, I don't see anything worth merging. Rorshacma (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Drake & Josh#Online videos. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Drake & Josh#Online videos. Zackdasnicker (talk) 09:50, 30 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 as the nomination was obviously in bad faith. Brandon (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Héctor Martín Cantero

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

not notable enough to require a wikipedia article Honey-badger24 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Héctor Martín Cantero[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, per WP:AUTHOR, Hector Martin is notable. His work has been repeatedly reviewed in multiple works. It has been reviewed in nationwide Spanish newspapers, various technical news websites and academic publications. See the third point: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

Secondly, you seem to have been launching a personal attack against Hector Martin on the talk page on the Kiwi Farms Wikipedia page here. Please don't do that and especially not on Wikipedia. Thanks. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a vanity page. He isn't notable. If he was, this site would be filled with articles like this. Also, the Kiwi Farms article linked ne to this, and I was amazed that his vanity page was allowed to stay up. Him being a liar has nothing to do with me wanting this removed. He's not of any real note enough to have a wiki article. That's the point I'm making, not about him lying about some mentally ill guy faking a suicide. Honey-badger24 (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and PhotographyEdits is more than likely Hector himself, so, Hi Hector! Honey-badger24 (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KiwiFarmer! This is Hector, your trolling is very transparent, and PhotographyEdits is *definitely* a sockpuppet of mine even though they have more edits this year than I've ever made since creating my Wikipedia account in 2004. /s Marcan (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourced well enough to get over the wiki-notability bar. A news search finds more that could potentially be added; note that not all publications use the "Cantero" part of his name. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that at least based on my understanding of MOS:PATRONYMIC and Spanish naming customs, "Martín" is the patronymic and "Cantero" is the matronymic, and the matronymic is generally not used in common names. (However, I don't know much about names, so I may be misunderstanding things here.) --Pokechu22 (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. I generally do not use my full name, just "Hector Martin" (without the diacritics), when identifying myself online, even though my legal name is correct in the article title. (In case it wasn't clear, I had nothing to do with the creation of the article nor am I going to try to influence its fate in any way, but I'm happy to answer any questions.) Marcan (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PhotographyEdits. --Pokechu22 (talk) 18:53, 27 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. RL0919 (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnotic (upcoming film)

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

Future film with very little coverage, despite being in production, it has not received significant coverage for a standalone article, should be moved to draft until notability can be shown BOVINEBOY2008 00:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:20, 28 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.